Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sensing the future

  1. Mar 9, 2005 #1
    In the 'black box can see the future' thread from awhile ago, the following part can be read:

    Does anyone know any more about these experiments? I would like to see some published papers on this.

    Have they been debunked or explained in some way?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 9, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have been wondering about this as well.
  4. Mar 13, 2005 #3
    I just noticed that in the paragraph directly below it says:

    So it seems the results have never been published, even though some of the experiments were more than 30 years ago.
  5. Mar 13, 2005 #4
    Well, until they dont publish, we should wait, or its just a publicity stunt.

    Its also possible that the result are due to anticipation of horible pictures. And not 100% acurate.

    Its also possible that brain can extract information from the existing surroundings and not from the future, by syscronizing with the computers random number generator or something like from brain of the expreiments creator . This suggestion is too far fetched but remotely possible.
  6. Mar 13, 2005 #5
    Did I miss something?? Isnt it possible that these reactions came from the expectation much like in operant conditioning? Its not as if they had this reaction before they ever saw the images. They had them after being priorly exposed and in a time and situation where it would only be logical for them to expect to see the same type of images again. Again....I dont understand why this was not offered as an explanation...did I miss something??
  7. Mar 13, 2005 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, this is exactly the claim made in what I saw.
  8. Mar 13, 2005 #7
    I vaguely remember hearing, seeing or reading something about these experiments. From what i remember, they showed the testsubjects either horrific or nice pictures.

    Either case would trigger a certain reaction. They discovered that even before the picture was shown, their reaction would match the horrific or nice picture that they were going to see.
  9. Mar 13, 2005 #8
    That deals away with the expectation theory. :blushing: lol Is it safe to assume that there was no pattern that they could have caught on to? If yes, then I dont have a better explanation than their own... although I have a hard time believing it.
  10. Mar 13, 2005 #9
    I was wondering about the possability of expectation playing a role as well.
    Having more info on the tests and the way they were run would probably help. Too bad they don't want to release their findings.
    Being that we're talking about Dean Radin here though....
    http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm [Broken]
    He doesn't have a very good track record I don't think.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  11. Mar 14, 2005 #10
    Concerning the 'random number genaerator' that can 'see the future':

    My first comment is that one cannot make a truely random number generator with current technology. At best you have a pseudo-random number generator.

    Next: Even though I have looked at the websites conserning this report I still have a hard time buying their corrollary between world events and their data. If it is true then individualy one should be able to influence the distribution as well as a group. There should be controled experiments to confirm their hypothesis, not speculative conjecture!

    As for what you guys have been discissing it seems that classical Pavlovian conditioning should apply escpecially if there is prior exposure. The anticipation of such distressing pictures should be considered as part and parcel of the phenomena they are conjecturing!
  12. Mar 14, 2005 #11
    From what ive read they use atomic decay to create random numbers and this is apparently truly random. In one of the skeptical reports of the GCP it says:

    Uve probably heard abou PEAR, and what ur saying is exactly what the PEAR results seem to indicate, that individuals can influence RNGs.

  13. Mar 14, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Sounds interesting. I'll believe it when I can see the whole layout and the unmodified data.

    Data selection is a possibility. So is them sensing the future. Data selection is improbable, but how improbable compared to sensing the future?
  14. Mar 14, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One could argue that PEAR is not an entirely impartial source of information. You could also make a pretty good case they are statistically challenged. You might even conclude this source is more reliable:
  15. Mar 14, 2005 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I would say the same is true for your link. I would stick with science sources and not debunking stumps. When I look at subjects that I know quite a bit about, the skeptical sites are usually quite pedestrian and the information presented is unrepresentative of the subject as a whole. Anyone can cherry pick including [in fact, especially] the debunkers.
  16. Mar 15, 2005 #15
    Obviously It means the either the atomic decay is not random or the universe is a Matrix.


    There is nothing random and being neural network we can learn to predict the future. That leaves us open to create a PRECOGNITION programs ?
    This depends upon the fact whether the results are the same in case of new subjects compared to thoes who are taking these test for a longer time. The Brain learns.

    What if we change the picture from horrific to nice ones as soon as we detect the brains reaction to an in comming horrific picture. Will we be changing the future ?
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2005
  17. Mar 15, 2005 #16
    When i was looking for info on Professor Bierman, i found this link from the university of Utrecht where u can participate in an online experiment and test ur own precognitive skills:

    http://www.parapsy.nl/precognitie/ [Broken]

    My result:

    P-value of your trial: 0.819

    Dont know if thats good or bad...

    *i just found this link where u can participate in more of these experiments:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  18. Mar 15, 2005 #17
    I think ive seen some randomness and free will threads in the Philosophy section :smile:

    Personally i dont think our conscious experience of being able to make decisions is an illusion.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2005
  19. Mar 15, 2005 #18
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2005
  20. Mar 15, 2005 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    My work involves considerable use of statistics and probability theory. I cringe when I see naked assertions of hugely improbable events. There are many ways to arrive at a faulty conclusion of what is and is not meaningful. Even professional scientists screw this up a lot more often than you might think. If I dealt you a poker hand then informed you there was only 1 chance in 2,349,060 of being dealt that particular hand. What have I actually told you? [yes, it's a trick question].
  21. Mar 15, 2005 #20


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Heh - I'm going to use that the next time I play.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook