Can Science Explain the Phenomenon of Seeing Future Visions?

[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 :)