Can Science Explain the Phenomenon of Seeing Future Visions?

[setAI]

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 have already adressed this partially above:

...our perception of reality may already be modulated in subtle ways by interference from the quantum multiverse- now this sort of thinking can lead to the slippery-slope of “quantum flapdoodle” of the worst kind but it should be noted that skepticism of Psi is based on classical ideas about nature- but we don’t live in a classical world- we live in a quantum world: the most credible forms of Psi experiments with Random Number Generators and the experiments that demonstrate Bell’s Inequalities are essentially the same type of experiment! Psi and Quantum Mechanics both make the same non-trivial predictions about the nature of an observer and her environment-


one reason for persistent scientific skepticism about psi is due to outdated assumptions about the nature of reality. For centuries, scientists assumed that everything can be explained by mechanisms analogous to clockworks. But over the course of the 20th century, we've learned that this common sense assumption is wrong. When the fabric of reality is examined very closely, nothing resembling clockworks can be found. Instead, reality is woven from strange, "holistic" threads that aren't located precisely in space or time. Tug on a dangling loose end from this fabric of reality, and the whole cloth twitches, instantly, throughout all space and time.
Science is at the very earliest stages of understanding entanglement, and there is much yet to learn. But what we've seen so far provides a new way of thinking about psi. No longer are psi experiences regarded as rare human talents, divine gifts, or "powers" that magically transcend ordinary physical boundaries. Instead, psi becomes an unavoidable consequence of living in an interconnected, entangled physical reality. Psi is reframed from a bizarre anomaly that doesn't fit into the normal world - and hence labeled paranormal - into a natural phenomenon of physics.

Dean Radin[/color]


I DESPISE quantum flapdoodle- I hate it when people who don't understand QM try to gloss it over and use it as a means to whatever bull**** mysticism they are pedling- which makes it all the worse when ideas that are clearly not flapdoodle are dismissed as same-

Psi is much closer to somehthing like Hameroff's ideas- those turned out to be wrong- but were real science-

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm sorry, but I live in a classical world. I don't know where you live. That whole premise that we live in a quantum world is bogus! If we are in a quantum world, then quantum mechanics would be the FIRST description that we have and it won't have been so weird and so unusual in the first place! In fact, the concept that we use such as energy, space, position, momentum, etc.. are ALL classical concept. Each time we make a measurement, it is a classical measurement!

Read Dave Pines' article on "Quantum Protectorate" and figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! You have just revealed the fatal flaw of your assumption in all of this.

So this guy, who obviously has never studied QM, seems to know how to apply it, and in fact, in your view, TRUMPS the rest of us physicists. What's wrong with THIS picture?

Zz.

 

[setAI]

I'm sorry, but I live in a classical world. I don't know where you live. That whole premise that we live in a quantum world is bogus! If we are in a quantum world, then quantum mechanics would be the FIRST description that we have and it won't have been so weird and so unusual in the first place! In fact, the concept that we use such as energy, space, position, momentum, etc.. are ALL classical concept. Each time we make a measurement, it is a classical measurement!

Read Dave Pines' article on "Quantum Protectorate" and figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! You have just revealed the fatal flaw of your assumption in all of this.

So this guy, who obviously has never studied QM, seems to know how to apply it, and in fact, in your view, TRUMPS the rest of us physicists. What's wrong with THIS picture?

Zz.

you do not live in a classical world- and are directly disputing that claim by the leading quantum physicists in the world - for instance David Deutsch has said: " Philosophically, I would like to add to that that it simply does not make sense to say that there are parallel copies of all particles that participate in microscopic interactions, but that there are not parallel copies of macroscopic ones. It is like saying that someone is going to double the number of pennies in a bank account without doubling the number of Pounds."

you are also ignoring the fundamental role of the observer and the Measurement Problem-

 

[ZapperZ]

you do not live in a classical world- and are directly disputing that claim by the leading quantum physicists in the world - for instance David Deutsch has said: " Philosophically, I would like to add to that that it simply does not make sense to say that there are parallel copies of all particles that participate in microscopic interactions, but that there are not parallel copies of macroscopic ones. It is like saying that someone is going to double the number of pennies in a bank account without doubling the number of Pounds."

you are also ignoring the fundamental role of the observer and the Measurement Problem-

I ignore nothing.

And what Deutsch said has nothing to do with what I just said regarding our measurements as being classical. Besides, since when has Deutsch's view of the world become the STANDARD that we use in QM? Or are you actually remote sensing the future?

And speaking of ignoring, you have continued to ignore my point about phase transitions. Look at a quantum critical point and tell me you can ignore such a thing. And then tell me that you can actually extrapolate with equal validity across such phase transition. And while you're at it, I'd like to see you go back through a broken time-reversal symmetry transition.

All of these are physics that you and Radin have so conveniently ignored!

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

Referencing http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html as suggested by setAI. If gullibility is a science it would surely belong in psychology. Directing good intentions? Gee, when the pollsters ask for me to tell who I support in an upcoming election I always lie. How do you measure "intentions?" If not by asking the senders if they did it, maybe by the results that showed a difference? Give me a break. Players I have beat in online backgammon tournaments persist in claims that the computer dice generator has decided to favor me. Funny how they are the low ranked players. The beaten high ranked players call me a lucky son of a biscuit eater. Now admittedly in those games I have not gone with the technically correct play but gone with a hunch. I usually lose my butt when I do that.

I do not see yet where Randi owes anyone. Specifics please.

And why the hell does the seemingly identical to gnawed spell checker not work here?

 

[setAI]

I ignore nothing.

you have continued to ignore my point about phase transitions. Look at a quantum critical point and tell me you can ignore such a thing.


Zz.

how can I continue to ignore something you just mentioned casually in your last post? whatever-

your problem with understanding the nature of the qcp of phase transitions- as with any interaction of quantum observables- is that the decohering histories in which the transition occurs/does not occur are NOT TRULY ORTHAGONAL as is often lazily hand-waved wrt measurments- orthogonality here is merely a convinent metaphore to allow you to ignore very subtle but in-principle real measurable efects on the so-called classical state that is observed- the truth is that decoherence never becomes absolute- ALL parallel outcomes in EVERY parallel universe interfere with each other- it is only very expensive and technically unfeasible [at this time] to compute those effects-

just as Deutsch points to the fuzzy edges of shadows as evidence for the interference of parallel universes emerging at classical scales- the molecular interactions that provide triggers for neuarl signals are also subject to the interference of parallel universes- this alone for instance raises the certainty of some kinds of neural signals to fire BEFORE the triggering event [as has been observed in experiments of nematode nerve cells] probably due to increased random interference from parallel histories in which a similar event occurs to a similar brain but slighty ahead of time in terms of frames of reference-the decoherence of these parallel worlds is NEARLY orthagonal- but not enough to prevent random interference which can have real meaningful affects at classical scales-

Psi is not 'magical' telepathy or fortune-telling! all that has been observed and all that is claimed is an increase/decrease of random interference with neural signals which non-trivially corresponds to stimuli that is not causally linked to the measured signal in a classically local way


"...there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other
universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences.
Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics. Just write down
the equation describing the motion of those fateful transmitter molecules, and their effect
on you and on the environment. Notice that their ”randomness” consists in their doing
two things at once: crossing that synapse and not crossing it; and that the effect on you
was likewise that you did two things at once: buy my book and buy Penrose’s. Such effects
spread out, making everything do many things at once, which is what we mean by saying
that there are ”parallel universes.”
Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are
detectable in carefully designed experiments. There are projects underway - close to your
heart, I know, as well as mine - to harness these effects to perform useful computations.
When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than
there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will prove to us
that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn’t
enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?"

http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloy...sch_debate.pdf

"decoherence is just a matter of degree. There is never a moment after which an object's invisible counterparts cannot affect it any longer. It just gets too expensive to set up the apparatus that would demonstrate their existence. "

~David Deutsch

[/color]

 

[ZapperZ]

how can I continue to ignore something you just mentioned casually in your last post? whatever-

your problem with understanding the nature of the qcp of phase transitions- as with any interaction of quantum observables- is that the decohering histories in which the transition occurs/does not occur are NOT TRULY ORTHAGONAL as is often lazily hand-waved wrt measurments- orthogonality here is merely a convinent metaphore to allow you to ignore very subtle but in-principle real measurable efects on the so-called classical state that is observed- the truth is that decoherence never becomes absolute- ALL parallel outcomes in EVERY parallel universe interfere with each other- it is only very expensive and technically unfeasible [at this time] to compute those effects-

just as Deutsch points to the fuzzy edges of shadows as evidence for the interference of parallel universes emerging at classical scales- the molecular interactions that provide triggers for neuarl signals are also subject to the interference of parallel universes- this alone for instance raises the certainty of some kinds of neural signals to fire BEFORE the triggering event [as has been observed in experiments of nematode nerve cells] probably due to increased random interference from parallel histories in which a similar event occurs to a similar brain but slighty ahead of time in terms of frames of reference-the decoherence of these parallel worlds is NEARLY orthagonal- but not enough to prevent random interference which can have real meaningful affects at classical scales-

Psi is not 'magical' telepathy or fortune-telling! all that has been observed and all that is claimed is an increase/decrease of random interference with neural signals which non-trivially corresponds to stimuli that is not causally linked to the measured signal in a classically local way


"...there are indeed other, equally real, versions of you in other
universes, who chose differently and are now enduring the consequences.
Why do I believe this? Mainly because I believe quantum mechanics. Just write down
the equation describing the motion of those fateful transmitter molecules, and their effect
on you and on the environment. Notice that their ”randomness” consists in their doing
two things at once: crossing that synapse and not crossing it; and that the effect on you
was likewise that you did two things at once: buy my book and buy Penrose’s. Such effects
spread out, making everything do many things at once, which is what we mean by saying
that there are ”parallel universes.”
Furthermore, the universes affect each other. Though the effects are minute, they are
detectable in carefully designed experiments. There are projects underway - close to your
heart, I know, as well as mine - to harness these effects to perform useful computations.
When a quantum computer solves a problem by dividing it into more sub-problems than
there are atoms in the universe, and then solving each sub-problem, it will prove to us
that those sub-problems were solved somewhere - but not in our universe, for there isn’t
enough room here. What more do you need to persuade you that other universes exist?"

http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloy...sch_debate.pdf

"decoherence is just a matter of degree. There is never a moment after which an object's invisible counterparts cannot affect it any longer. It just gets too expensive to set up the apparatus that would demonstrate their existence. "

~David Deutsch

[/color]

Phase transition? Decoherence? Are you kidding?

Please give me a valid reference to such a connection. You appear to have zero knowledge of what a "phase transition" is.

.. and you appear to cite Deutsh as if he's god. You are bowing to his words as gospel.

Zz.

 

[setAI]

Phase transition? Decoherence? Are you kidding?



Zz.

are you? decoherence applies to all possible events in any possible quantum system- a phase transition of any thermodynamic system is nothing more than an evovling system of quantum observables- all quantum systems evolve through every possible outcome state with the Born probabilities- if a phase transition is observed- it is also not observed in a set of histories- just like the cat in the box-

you said "figure out why phenomena like superconductivity can actually occur and why it prevails why others don't! " - I am saying that just as with any other possible system in nature- the decohered histories still have an effect on the observed classical state- regardless if that history was of a phase transiton of a liquid into a superconducting superfluid for instance- the specific details of the system are not at issue- what is is do other possible outcomes affect the observed classical state of ANY system- and the answer is yes- so any understanding of say quantum phase transitions where the random quantum fluctuations affect the state of the system inj an important way- you MUST understand how the entangled ensemble interacts- I posit that any prediction of such a phase transtition that does not include the effects of parallel states where the transition did NOT occur will fail to predict the necessary zero point fluctuations that allowed it to occur in the first place!

and what are the effects of parallel universe in which a phase transition did not occur on the ones that it did? we don't have the resources to simulate that yet!- but we can state as a fact that the critical point of any phase transition does not occur across all histories- and that those histories do have a causal effect on the ones where it did- one would need to know quantum gravity and have a computer capable of calculating the Hlbert Space of a thermodynamic system to see what is going on in more detail-

bottom line: any physical model that does not include the effects of parallel universes for any measurement/event in any possible physical state or process and treats them as orthagonal is WRONG

interstingly enough- this week David Deutsch issued a press release that he has shown mathematically that the "bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself " exactly reproduces the probabilities predicted by the Born rule for any system- which is why Andreas Albrecht said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science"- sorry -but it looks like those condensed matter textbooks are going to be re-written to include the Everett picture in order to accurately predict the true nature of Quantum Criticality!

Andreas works for us at UC Davis- thank god for the insight of the West Coast not to dismiss perfectly valid science because it makes us uncomfortable!

 

[ZapperZ]

You have done nothing here but insert something that doesn't apply. If you look at what is meant by a "phase transition", you'd see no such issue of "decoherence". Going from normal state into superconducting state (a 2nd order phase transition) has NO DECOHERENCE. In fact, one can easily argue that there is now a coherence of the supercurrent state due to the onset of a quantum protectorate!

Yet, my point still stand that across such phase transition, several quantities undergo an ABRUPT transition, very much like an ordinary thermodynamic phase transition. My point is bringing this up, which both you and Radin have missed, is that NONE of these quantities can be easily extrapolated from one phase to another. There is an abrupt discontinuity in either the thermodynamic state function, or in case of a 2nd order phase transition, a discontinuity in another intrinsic parameter of the system. You cannot extrapolate what is valid in one phase into another. That was my original point which you seem to have missed. And this is valid no matter who you worship because such quantities can be measured.

All you have done is tried to mix and match things that simply makes no sense. When I asked you for a valid citation on where these have been done, all you are able to do is to quote your "bible" repeatedly, very much what I encountered when I argue against some religious fanatics. You have not shown where phase transition has anything to do with decoherence other than some handwaving argument point to Deutsh's theory.

BTW, you can't propose on rewriting textbooks on condensed matter when you have no clue what they are.

Zz.

 

[kokain]

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- [/b]

Is he trying to be ironic? Defend a non-provable theory in the same breath as you bash another non-provable theory.

Radin is a poo-poo head. I can prove without a doubt that he is a hoax. What does he do again? I'm sure feeling angry, I hope I don't influenceewws the spell checkkkeyor on my zciiompeauter toi missspreell werds.

 

[kokain]

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-

Was Random Number Generator the woman that the French Man gave the orgasm with the dessert?

 

[Evo]

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

Radin is considered to be a cracked pot by his peers. I wouldn't waste my time reading anything he wrote.

 

[kokain]

Last night, I was playing my computer based synthisizer. My wife was in the living room (downstairs- out of eyesight and earshot) watching Steel Magnolias. The music took a horrible turn for the worst and I began to cry for no reason. As I went to the bathroom for a tissue, my wife came in crying for a tissue herself. Is that proof enough? I want my million dollars!

 

[angel 42]

I want my million dollars!

I'm afraid there's non

no offense

 

[angel 42]

With all the respect to your opinion ZapperZ, it sounds like you don’t believe such a thing does exist "visions" in the first place. Why then bother your self typing here!
you don't have to prove your self, you already post more than 9000 posts. So you've made your point.

Although I haven't read that book by Radin, but from setAI replies it makes me abit confused?
But don't you think this discussion has gone far from where it should be.

I might be so little yet at this forum, but me and others have the right to try to find out as long as we don't across the line!

 

[ZapperZ]

With all the respect to your opinion ZapperZ, it sounds like you don’t believe such a thing does exist "visions" in the first place. Why then bother your self typing here!
you don't have to prove your self, you already post more than 9000 posts. So you've made your point.

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.

Rather than worry about me wasting my time, I'd say that you have more to be concerned with that you might be someone who accepts something as fact or to be true based on invalid and the flimsiest of evidence that have yet to be verified. I can understand if one feels compelled to consider something because one has undergone some unexplained experienced. But to simply accept it to be true without even considering the existing evidence that such an experience can in fact be explained by other means indicates an acceptance based on unverified evidence.

I don't see how anyone can be so comfortable with that.

Zz.

 

[minorwork]

I printed this dedicated to Martin Gardner. My little dragon sits on my monitor turning his head and looking at me when I move. I know it is an illusion. For me a reminder that out of noise has come familiar images generated from my past by the power of reason on auto pilot.

http://www.moillusions.com/2006/03/dragon-illusion.html

Roll your own.

 

[angel 42]

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.
Zz.

Are you somehow trying to call me a liar?
Well, I "see" what I told you guys about, and there's a difference between what you called that "our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened" (which I agree with you about it cause almost every person experience that), and that what I say which is " seeing something that never existed or happened and then will happen in the future exactly the same way I saw it".


any comments,any one?

 

[ZapperZ]

Are you somehow trying to call me a liar?

Nope. Anyone here can tell you that I don't mince my words. If I think you're a liar, I would have called you one.

Well, I "see" what I told you guys about, and there's a difference between what you called that "our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened" (which I agree with you about it cause almost every person experience that), and that what I say which is " seeing something that never existed or happened and then will happen in the future exactly the same way I saw it".


any comments,any one?

But look at the study that I linked to earlier. Many people actually thought they actually did something that they never did!

Again, this is not to dismiss anything, but to bring out already established fact that such a thing can happen. This is why a scientific evidence is different than an anecdotal evidence. You may have experienced what you described, but there's a plethora of possible explanations for it. Until that evidence is established, there can not be any 'scientific explanation'.

Zz.

 

[novaa77]

Again, look at my point of entry in this thread. You'd noticed that I didn't bother responding to what you wrote in the first place, because I did exactly say to myself "why bother when they seem to already believe such a thing exist!", i.e. I'm saying the SAME thing that you just said, but towards you.

But since I already got involved in here, I might as well make my point clear.

However, you need to also listen to yourself here. You're asking people to "BELIEVE" in such a thing. Not showing them clear, concrete evidence, but simply to "believe" based on nothing more than what you said you have "seen". This is IN SPITE of the evidence that (i) our minds can be easily fooled into seeing something that never existed or happened (ii) anecdotal evidence is terribly insufficient for any kind of "scientific" evaluation.

Just exactly what kind of "clear concrete" evidence do you expect?

You seem to have set a clear boundry on your capacity to understand/examine anything new based on your past experiences which for some reason best known to you are not to be challanged.

Rather than worry about me wasting my time, I'd say that you have more to be concerned with that you might be someone who accepts something as fact or to be true based on invalid and the flimsiest of evidence that have yet to be verified. I can understand if one feels compelled to consider something because one has undergone some unexplained experienced. But to simply accept it to be true without even considering the existing evidence that such an experience can in fact be explained by other means indicates an acceptance based on unverified evidence.

I don't see how anyone can be so comfortable with that.

This is not a discusion about what anyone is comfortable with. The majority was comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat and the sun being the center of the solar system ( all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

As I said earlier you need to step out of your comfort zone to progress!

Again, this is not to dismiss anything, but to bring out already established fact that such a thing can happen. This is why a scientific evidence is different than an anecdotal evidence. You may have experienced what you described, but there's a plethora of possible explanations for it. Until that evidence is established, there can not be any 'scientific explanation'

.


What "already esablished fact" that such a thing can happen are you talking about?

Is there an already established fact that such a thing can't happen?

As for the flag of scientific evidence that you have been waving so high, if you are dismiss the experience, how do you expect to obtain evidence The fact of the experience is the evidence that we need to consider.

You have the attitude ofa blind man refusing to believe the existence of colour!

Nope. Anyone here can tell you that I don't mince my words. If I think you're a liar, I would have called you one.

You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.

 

[ZapperZ]

Just exactly what kind of "clear concrete" evidence do you expect?

You seem to have set a clear boundry on your capacity to understand/examine anything new based on your past experiences which for some reason best known to you are not to be challanged.





This is not a discusion about what anyone is comfortable with. The majority was never comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat or the sun being the center of the solar system (though all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

As I said earlier you need to step out of your comfort zone to progress!

.


What "already esablished fact" that such a thing can happen are you talking about?

Is there an already established fact that such a thing can't happen?

As for the flag of scientific evidence that you have been waving so high, if you are dismiss the experience, how do you expect to obtain evidence The fact of the experience is the evidence that we need to consider.

You have the attitude ofa blind man refusing to believe the existence of colour!




You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.

Or maybe you completely missed the point that I've been trying to make?

1. This person makes a claim

2. Can this claim have a 'scientific explanation'?

3. Scientific explanation cannot be formulated when the evidence isn't clear.

4. The nature of the evidence is extremely important for something to be accepted as a valid phenomenon. Anecdotal evidence has never been considered as valid evidence.

5. Anecdotal evidence CAN become valid evidence upon further testing. Valid phenomenon becomes more well know and better understood as more testing are done and repeated under various conditions and circumstances.

6. Many anecdotal evidence never got around past First Base, no matter how long the claim of such evidence have been made. These tend to be called pseudosciences.

7. To ask or seek 'scientific description or explanation' for #6 is futile due to #3.

So which of these points that I had made do you disagree?

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

The majority was never comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat or the sun being the center of the solar system (though all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

Not to nitpick but, can you give me the data to back this up?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.

No. Zz is making very articulate and sound points.

 

[novaa77]

Not to nitpick but, can you give me the data to back this up?

Oops, the "never" was never supposed to be there. Have a look now.

 

[novaa77]

Or maybe you completely missed the point that I've been trying to make?

1. This person makes a claim

2. Can this claim have a 'scientific explanation'?

Is there any reason to believe it can't have a scientific explanation

3. Scientific explanation cannot be formulated when the evidence isn't clear.

4. The nature of the evidence is extremely important for something to be accepted as a valid phenomenon. Anecdotal evidence has never been considered as valid evidence.

If you are looking for physical, tangiable evidence you are not going to get any. As I mentioned earlier the fact of the experience is the evidence, unless you disregard the whole thing as some trick the mind is playing.

5. Anecdotal evidence CAN become valid evidence upon further testing. Valid phenomenon becomes more well know and better understood as more testing are done and repeated under various conditions and circumstances.

Seems to contridict point 4. This is exactly what I mean. This phenomenon has to be
studied further to understand what is going on. However if we are to dismiss it as hokum (based on earlier experience) prior testing, how are we to know if it is a valid phenomenon?

 

[minorwork]

What be the significance of this phenomena? Especially without the ability to perform on command. Is it a lightning bolt out of the blue? If so then chance will drop the significance of the visions true or no.

 

[novaa77]

What be the significance of this phenomena? Especially without the ability to perform on command. Is it a lightning bolt out of the blue? If so then chance will drop the significance of the visions true or no.

What is the significance of the phenomena?
Are you kidding me?

Do you not realize the implications (if proved to be true) of being able to "see" the future not only in sciencetific terms but also on a personal level.

 

[NeoDevin]

novaa77: I think what ZapperZ is saying is that there is no way to offer a scientific explanation, and no reason to consider it an actual phenomenon, until after testing has been done (using a reliable method) to confirm that it is actually happening, and not, as some have suggested, merely the mind playing tricks on itself.

To help it become actual evidence, the OP should do as was suggested, and write down visions as they occur (preferably with witnesses present), and then make note when they actually happen. There is no reason to consider modifying the current scientific thoughts on visions/precognition until it has been ruled out that one of the current explanations is false. If it becomes conclusively shown that the current explanations are incorrect, I would bet that a great many scientists would consider it a valid phenomenon (though I'm sure there would also be many who wouldn't).

 

[minorwork]

from novaa77
What is the significance of the phenomena?
Are you kidding me?

Do you not realize the implications (if proved to be true) of being able to "see" the future not only in sciencetific terms but also on a personal level.

Do we not "see" the future now? Will not the light come on when I throw the switch? What tests determine the veracity of this vision? Is this a significant example of what you refer to as "seeing?" Does the light coming on prove I knew the future or did I calculate the probabilities when predicting the light? "Even a blind sow finds an acorn once in a while."

Again. What be the significance of this phenomena?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We are not interested in making subjective judgements about signficance. Were it true that people have visions of the future, from a scientific point of view the significance would be deep and profound - Earth'shaking!

 

[minorwork]

Precognition. Ability to perceive information about places or events through paranormal means before they happen. This seems the term in question. The term "paranormal" is anathema to scientific investigation. Drop the term and proceed.

I am hesitant to offer as a suggested reading but much influence has been felt by J.W. Dunne's Experiment in Time. I consider it pseudoscience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Paranormal" is defined as: something impossible to explain with science; not in accordance with scientific laws; seemingly outside normal sensory channels.

The word "impossible" is misleading. If a phenomenon is real then it is a subject of science. If imaginary, then it doesn't exist. But to say that something is real and can never be explained, is a prediction. So strictly speaking, to say that something is "paranormal" is at least a philosophical statement, and at most a psychic claim!

 

[minorwork]

from Ivan Seeking
"Paranormal" is defined as: something impossible to explain with science; not in accordance with scientific laws; seemingly outside normal sensory channels.

The word "impossible" is misleading. If a phenomenon is real then it is a subject of science. If imaginary, then it doesn't exist. But to say that something is real and can never be explained, is a prediction. So strictly speaking, to say that something is "paranormal" is at least a philosophical statement, and at most a psychic claim!

According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.

And from the same journal;

PRECOGNITION: A form of ESP involving awareness of some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present.

So from the individuals point of view, a dream coming true requires only that the experiencer can not explain the mechanism involved for the term "paranormal" to apply?

 

[zoobyshoe]

According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.

And from the same journal;

PRECOGNITION: A form of ESP involving awareness of some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present.

So from the individuals point of view, a dream coming true requires only that the experiencer can not explain the mechanism involved for the term "paranormal" to apply?

According to the definitions you've offered, the individual may apply this term if he believes, not that he, himself, can't explain it, but that science can't explain it.

 

[minorwork]

So if the experiencer can't explain his/her vision and he thinks science can't, then the vision is classified paranormal. Did I get it yet?

Some explanations are "better" than others? Has science come up with several explanations for the planets paths in the sky? Ptolemy had his epicycles that would predict future locations. Then Newton simplified by projecting gravity to the planets. And then, my favorite, electricity.

Electricity to me is a wonder. I wonder what it is. How it works.

Some say electricity is smoke. Let the smoke out, it quits working.

Some say electricity is like water. A lot of tutorials use this.

Electricity is the flow of electrons we are told. Our scientists tell us that no matter how sophisticated our instruments get we will never see an electron at a certain time. It is imagined.

Then there is The Greenie Theory. A near perfect scientific model. It works in every case, it’s easy to believe, and it’s impossible to disprove. Greenies are too small to see. They are imaginary. The little Greenie girls buy the kegs, and turn up the stereo. The Greenie guys live to party and a party means girls, beer and rock n’ roll. The Greenie guys hear the music and the “need to party” comes over them. The Greenie to English dictionary calls this “voltage.” Kenn Amdahl covers all the other electrical jargon and gives us an internally consistent theory we can use to manipulate the world around us by the use of imaginary things. His book is called: There Are No Electrons: Electronics For Earthlings

Ben Franklin said the “electric fluid” flowed from the glass rod ( excess electrons) to the amber. And so today in industry electrons are diagrammed as an imaginary fluid on schematics as flowing from the positive to the negative. This understanding is called the “conventional theory.”

Today electrons are understood to proceed from the negative to the positive. This model is called the “electron theory.” Industry has not changed from the conventional theory to the newer more accurate electron theory because the two are translatable and each is internally consistent. The schematic symbols are direction dependent, not symmetric and would have to be changed. The diode and transistor symbols especially. To change over would be like changing from the English to the metric system.

Which explains the data “best?” For me and you, does “best” mean easiest for us to understand? Does “best” mean predictability? Just what is best?

An explanation for precognition needs to be internally consistent. It can be impossible to disprove. Like the "conventional" theory of electricity or the "Greenie", the explanation must work when used by those in the field, that is by the poor repairman trying to figure out why the heck the thing don't work and how do I fix it. We do want precog to work, right?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So if the experiencer can't explain his/her vision and he thinks science can't, then the vision is classified paranormal. Did I get it yet?

I was answering your question as asked. From any individual's point of view the word "paranormal" is appropriate if he believes science can't explain his "vision". In other words, the word is an appropriate expression of his perception under the circumstances. Someone else may regard his experience as something different.

 

[minorwork]

Indeed, some dreams I have written have been astonishingly close to events transpiring within weeks. Without digging out the 37 year old record I can recall that which astonished me. The dream was of a fountain with stairs on either side flowing from one pool to another. Next image immediately after I was on a motorcycle, downtown, heading south trying to out run a storm. I'm a son of a biscuit eater if it didn't happen but that I took the girlfriend to the movie showing I think it was Jason and the Argonauts where I immediately recognized the fountain. After the show a line storm was coming out of the west and we high tailed it out of town on my motorcycle.

I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

 

[OOO]

I don't know if it has been remarked in this thread before. I think there are at least two levels at which one could refine the question of the thread starter into something that can be subject to scientific investigation:

(1) Is there a reproducible phenomenon of precognition ?
(2) Is there a real but episodic perception of apparent precognition ?

If we accept the (unproven) presumption that the thread starter is not a fraud then at least (2) is scientifically accessible regardless of whether it can really be confirmed as precognition (which I personally have no doubt it can't). In this spirit I understand thread starter's want to investigate his/her subjective perception from a scientific point of view.

But, as far as I know, psychology or neurophysiology or whatever neurosciences are in a too primitive state to be able to explain such complex phenomena as visions even in the most rudimentary way. But even if they were able to explain it, I doubt that this would satisfy thread starter because the interesting thing about these phenomena is that they are subjective.

To illustrate what I mean, let me talk about nightly dreams and the fact that we remember them when we are forced to wake up during REM sleep. I guess neurosciences say something about protein biosynthesis which determines long-term memory and if you don't wake up you don't build enough proteins to remember the dream.

But what I have frequently asked myself after waking up from a vivid dream is: who can say this with absolute scientific certainty ? Who can say whether the people in the control group which have not been forced to wake up, only didn't remember their dream because of lack of protein synthesis or if they haven't actually dreamt anything (e.g. as a result of lacking protein synthesis) ? Ask this yourself tomorrow morning when you wake up and don't remember any dream: where are all those dreams they say occur in REM sleep ? Did they happen in short-term memory and you've just forgotten them ? Or did they never happen and you were just rolling your eyeballs around ?

I'd say that memory can be an extremely strange thing to say the least. So if you really got these visions, enjoy them. And by the time you find out how to foresee the lottery numbers we should make an appointment.

 

[Huckleberry]

I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

Doesn't paranormal mean that it can't be explained by science? Why wouldn't you consider it a paranormal experience if you have no explanation for it? Is there some fear of the word, or some expectation that science is currently supposed to have an explanation for everything, or is this a misinterpretation of definitions?

Perhaps in the future, events like this will be testable and explainable by science. Then they won't be paranormal anymore. I don't understand the resistance to this idea. Your statement seems contradictory to me. What am I not understanding?

 

[Bonteburg]

uh... has anyone mentioned Andrew Newberg yet?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433&q=andrew+newberg&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Video is oldish but he's apparently still at it.

Marco :)

 

[minorwork]

from Huckleberry

Quote:
Originally Posted by minorwork
I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

Doesn't paranormal mean that it can't be explained by science? Why wouldn't you consider it a paranormal experience if you have no explanation for it? Is there some fear of the word, or some expectation that science is currently supposed to have an explanation for everything, or is this a misinterpretation of definitions?

Perhaps in the future, events like this will be testable and explainable by science. Then they won't be paranormal anymore. I don't understand the resistance to this idea. Your statement seems contradictory to me. What am I not understanding?

Primarily I seek a common definition so as to communicate and understand. Yes, I somewhat fear the word. I guess in the same manner as "supernatural." These are able to be abused by those claiming special powers worthy of worship. They are charged words that do not denote, at least for me, a precision in usage. But, a "vision having no explanation" being called "paranormal" only until our science improves is OK with me. As long as some agreement on this strict usage is agreed upon, like I've anything to say about it, I will use it that way. After all it is shorter than "unexplained semi-conscious phenomenon only studied at a later time and from memory with no video or pictures."

 

[minorwork]

My personal conclusions on precog visions/dreams. There will generally be an unfilled parameter describing the reference frame at the arrival of the visions fulfillment.
Examples;
Lottery number seen but not the winning date. Maybe a past winner. Maybe like the movie "23" the numbers are related by some demonic formula to the winners. Which particular lottery not seen.

Unable to recall the vision/dream until fulfillment. (deja vu)

Forsee fathers death of unseen cancer and the father when told doesn't care, calls you crazy and cuts you out of the will. This falls under the category of "so what good was the vision" or the significance factor.

And there is always the slimmest of chances that the vision is not of the future but a symbolic way of dealing with your drinking problem.

Yeah, attempts have been made by governments to get useful information from this area of study but as far as I know the signal to noise ratio is so low that nothing over chance can consistently be shown. Those asking money for courses in precognition or "remote viewing" (the popular term,) are suspect of self fulfilling their vision of increased personal wealth.

 

[Huckleberry]

After all it is shorter than "unexplained semi-conscious phenomenon only studied at a later time and from memory with no video or pictures."

Yeah, that would be quite a mouthful. And you're right, paranormal is a charged word. It's a conundrum.

 

[angel 42]

Hello again, sounds like I missed a lot, I was somewhat busy but I'm back.
Some of you guys asks me about my visions how does it happen, when, is it like dreams, or always about me.….
So, I preferred to distribute "VISIONS" as follows: (this is only my notes)

1-DREAMS: which we all experience them since childhood until now. Off course, it happens while sleeping. Almost you are involving in it 'your vision', rarely not. There could be a lot of fantasy in dreams like seeing a red sea and other stuff like that. Moreover, you can live the fantasy, like seeing and feeling you're flying in the sky, in other words it could break the laws of physics. Another thing about dreams, you 'feel' yourself living it, as if your body and soul exist in this kind of visions. It also could include your past, current or future life.
TIMING: WHILE SLEEP.

2-VISIONS OF THOUGHTS: I don't know what exactly shall I call this kind, which we all experience it (I guess), but I'll give an example:
If you're welling to visit your girlfriend let's say to ask her for a date, you'll then keep thinking a lot and "imagine"((which is here a vision)) her response… I think you got me. It's related to your concerns until you're done with them. But here you DON'T "see yourself" like computer games (as a third person), you may only feel. Think of it.
TIMING: BETWEEN THINKING OF SOMETHING IMPORTANT UNTILL DEALING WITH IT.

3-VISIONS OF MEMORY: this is when you remember someone as an old friend or so, then you'll start to "remind"((which is here a vision)) yourself the old days. Clearly, this kind of visions is only about your past, again you only can feel yourself but not seeing it.
TIMING: WHENEVER YOU REMEMBER AN EVENT OF YOUR LIFE.

4-VISIONS OF FUTURE: this is happening when thinking randomly. Nothing precisely concerns or disturbs your thoughts. It could be when you carelessly watch the TV or while doing "carelessly" whatever activity. The vision jumped to your mind, you see it as if you are a cinematographer like I described above {like computer games (as a third person)}. Here you don't feel at all only see yourself, as if your soul is watching your body, you're also involve in the vision. [May be the reason behind this unfeeling is you don't experience this situation yet, so the unconsciousness don't know what kind of feeling shall it tied with this vision…maybe]. You're awake when see this kind of visions you also may comment at your vision like the one I gave as an example previously in this thread. And it's always about something in the future but you don't never know when. After, when it happen, it happens exactly the same[let's say from the first scene to the last one exactly the same BUT HERE YOU FEEL YOURSELF].
TIMING: NON.

5-VISIONS OF THE FUTURE CAN BE CONTROLED: here it's the same as 4, but here you relies earlier that you saw this as a vision while it's still happening (unlike 4), so you could change some of what you knew that will happen next!
TIMING: NON.
I tried my best to discribe this, my main point is 4 and 5, hope it'll make things clear.

 

[chiralc]

Seizures?

Sounds a bit like simple partial seizures. You may be fully conscious, but experience feelings of deja vu with visual hallucinations or other sensations.

 

[minorwork]

Since my post #14 of this thread, it has come to my attention that Concentration by Ernest Wood is available on line at http://www.theosophical.ca/ConcentrationEW.htm"
This is a great opportunity.

 

[keinve]

well, it is probably these 'visions' can be mostly self-fullfilling. the more you start to think they are real, the more you will start to follow through with them subconsciously.

 

[minorwork]

And the "deja vu" experiences can generate convictions for previous visions. These experiences, because of their everyday nature, can be classed "deja vu." Visions of space alien abductations beg for another classification.

 

[muggle]

Hello, I have had visions exactly as you describe. I have had visions since I was 5 or 6 years old. They have come in varying lengths. Most are in the form of seeing the event and then experiencing that exact same event in minute detail years later. Some however, have been in the form of knowledge that I could not possibly have, I knew things that would be impossible for me to know through any logical way.
I will spare the none believers the details.
I look at it this way, If the world operated without eye sight as a common sense that the vast majority of humans shared, then those who were able to see via eye sight would be mocked, disbelieved and at best not understood.
There is a critical mass of humans on the Earth who now have the ability of Visions and other senses that many humans alive today do not share.
This does not make the experience any less valid. If most people are unable to understand visions, then we simply have to study it ourselves and find the answers to how it works so that more people can experience it.
Both of my children have it, and more and more people are getting the ability by birth.
It is nothing to fear --- and it is nothing to deny.
I do not have many resources on the subject, but Depak Chopra, the Dali Lama, and numerous religions accept it as reality.
I will begin to read some of the books suggested by other people posting and see if I can learn more.
-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi muggle,

You are welcome to share your personal experiences, but you need to provide supporting evidence in the form of credible data to show that claims of visions are on the rise generally. Also, note that your experiences, even if true, do not validate the claims of others.