Predicting the Future

  • Thread starter Dotini
  • 18 comments
  • 3,281 views

Dotini

(Banned)
15,742
United States
Seattle
CR80_Shifty
http://motherboard.tv/2011/1/7/a-vi...und-precognition-in-the-men-who-stare-at-porn

Dr. Daryl Bem...energetic emeritus Cornell parapsychologist has attempted to experimentally demonstrate that the human mind can “feel” future events. And in his latest article, he reports that people in the present are probably influenced by, and can predict, events that happen in the future.

Before you confuse Bem’s research with past parapsychology hoaxes such as Project Alpha, or the experiments in “The Men Who Stare at Goats,” keep in mind that the article (pdf) is set to appear this month in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, one of the field’s premier clearinghouses. “The article has passed review by four scientific experts,” Bem says.

His experiments test for precognition—the ability of people to perceive events in the future. In one of nine such experiments conducted on more than 1000 student subjects, a pornographic image would randomly appear on the left or right hand side of a computer screen. The results indicate that people could predict where the pornographic image would appear—even before the computer made its random decision.

Of course, this phenomenon was not observed to occur all of the time. Instead, Bem looks for the small deviations in expected outcomes. In this case, it is expected that people would, on average, guess the left or right side correctly 50% of the time. However, he reports that his participants could predict the position 53.1% of the time. And because this 3.1% difference is reported statistically significant, Bem asserts it is strong evidence for precognition. This, as well as the results of his other experiments, undoubtedly appears extraordinary.
 
A 3% difference...I don't know if this experiment prooves anything, an interesting read and topic though.
 
I think this might have a bit more credibility can duplicate the experiment and get similar results.

If I were flip a coin 100 times and have it come up "heads" 53 times, I wouldn't consider that particularly remarkable.
 
Yeah, the logical side of me is going bull:censored:, and the fact that it was an image of pornography makes me think hes just a troll. I'm not narrow minded enough to just dismiss the idea, but if people can predict the future, I don't think its going to be something like this. I've actually thought a lot about this, and I think its possible and can be explained.

Your brain subconsciously takes in information you may not particularly care for, and stores it. When you dream about something relating to that, it uses whatever information it has to make the place and events of that dream. If you have enough information, then your brain will tell you what is going to happen at that scenario. Basically a subconscious educated guess, and the more you know, the more chance that you're right.

Now the reason I don't believe that you can predict events in the immediate future can be summed up in this little video which I cant embed, so heres a link: http://wins.failblog.org/2011/01/13/epic-win-videos-exposing-a-liar-win-2/
 
Last edited:
I can hear JREF waving their chequebook from here.

Also:

 
I remember a similar experiment where people were given glasses that had LEDs hooked to the front of them (Facing our eyes). The LEDs on the glasses would quickly blare light into people's eyes at completely random times. When the experiment ended, after testing on something like 30 people, they found that a large majority of them blinked 0.02 seconds before the LEDs went off. The difference between this and what Dotini posted may be the fact that this experiment inflicts a bit of pain, and therefore causes your body to react differently in this situation.
 
It's just a probability data point, not an indication of prescience. A string of 50/50 shots with only a 3% variance is not significant, unless it's from a pool of say, millions of events.

Now, if the screen were divided up into 12 blocks, and they got 53% of them right, that would be something!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality
Retrocausality has also been proposed as a mechanism to explain what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" occurring as a result of quantum entanglement. Although the prevailing scientific viewpoint is that the effects generated by quantum entanglement do not require any direct communication between the involved particles, Costa de Beauregard proposed an alternative theory.[24]

At an American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium, University of Washington physicist John Cramer presented the design for an experiment to test for backward causation in quantum entanglement,[3] subsequently receiving some attention from the popular media.[25][26] Work on Cramer's non-local communication test started in January 2007. Cramer included a status report on the "UW Test of Nonlocal Quantum Communications with Momentum-Entangled Photon Pairs" in his "Five Decades of Physics" talk at a symposium in his honor at the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, September 11 2009. Work on the experiment will continue during 2010.[27][28]
 
So, when do you post what you think about it, rather than just Copy/Paste?

On a related note, in Super High Me, the guy was better at predicting cards when he was stoned. So weed makes you a better psychic. Discuss.
 
So, when do you post what you think about it, rather than just Copy/Paste?

Well, the original question of the thread was predicting the future, a.k.a., precognition. Then I ran across an article which discussed the future changing the past, "retrocausality". I tried to ponder whether one was the same thing as the other - two side of the same coin, so to speak. I couldn't make complete sense of it, so I left it for readers to judge the relevance. I'm just not smart enough to figure it all out and make an unambiguous declarative statement of what it all means and how it works. Like Yogi Berra said, "prediction is very hard, especially about the future."

In all modesty,
Dotini
 
On a related note, in Super High Me, the guy was better at predicting cards when he was stoned. So weed makes you a better psychic. Discuss.

First we have asked if the future can be predicted within statistically significant measures. Next we have asked if the past can be changed by actions taken in the future. A general hypothesis emerges that all points in space and time are connected, which may be another way of saying that consciousness is universal.

Is there really such as thing as collective human consciousness? Many years ago, a department of Princeton University began a systematic study of this question. Here is a very cursory introduction to what they found. Many interesting links are there to be explored.

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/index.html
The Global Consciousness Project
24 06 2009

WHAT IS A “GLOBAL CONSCIOUSNESS PROJECT”?

Is there such a thing as mass human consciousness, and is it something that can be measured?

As “new age” as that may sound, it is a question that scientists began to explore in the late 1960′s, concurrent with the advent of computers and micro electronic technology. In 1979, Princeton University established a laboratory–the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group–to study the effect of human consciousness on electronic devices. In 1980 Dr. Roger Nelson, an experimental psychologist with a background in physics, statistical methods, and engineering, joined the group.

For the next 22 years Dr. Nelson and his colleagues developed and refined electronic hardware designed to generate random data, and used it to test their hypothesis that human consciousness can exert a measurable influence on physical electronic systems. During this time Dr. Nelson began to formulate ideas for what would later become the Global Consciousness Project

HOW DOES IT WORK?

The GCP’s core hypothesis is that mass human consciousness, when it is focused on some major global event, should measurably affect a network of continuously operating random number generators set up in 40 countries over the course of about 10 years. The process is rather complicated, but the concept is simple.

GCP’s instruments, referred to as “EGG’s” (an acronym for electrogaiagram), generate random numbers which can be represented as a continuous output of 1′s or 0′s. The principle is similar to that of flipping a coin, only much faster. In any set number of coin flips, an observer has an expectation that half of the coin flips will produce a result of “heads,” and half will produce “tails.” In Dr. Nelson’s process, “heads and tails” are replaced by “1′s and 0′s,” but the concept of an “expected result” remains the same.
Fractal Analysis of Random Data (Image courtesy of Dr. Roger Nelson)

Fractal Analysis of Random Data (Image courtesy of Dr. Roger Nelson)

In his analysis of this data, Dr. Nelson is looking for significant deviations from the expected result. That is to say, suspiciously long strings of either 1′s or 0′s. Using our coin analogy, imagine that you decide to flip a coin 100 times. You would expect to get 50 “heads” and 50 “tails,” with the understanding that the actual results might deviate slightly one way or the other. But what if you got “heads” 90 times in a row? That would indicate a significant deviation from the expected result.

By itself, this seeming coherence in a random system is meaningless. It isn’t until we apply the data to Dr. Nelson’s hypothesis that a very interesting phenomenon is revealed. Using a very strict criteria, Dr. Nelson began to examine the data as it correlated to major world events. Targeted events included such things as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the death of Princess Diana, and even New Year’s Eve celebrations. What Dr. Nelson discovered was that in the majority of these instances, the sampled data from the EGG network did indeed show the significant deviation from expected result that I describe above, and that Dr. Nelson predicted. Stated more simply (if somewhat less accurately), the results seemed to indicate that during major global events, the consciousness of a vast number of the world’s people–likely focused on the event–seems to exert some influence on the EGG network…the random number generators begin to generate long strings of non-random numbers.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

For me, it is interesting in and of itself. Dr. Nelson has data that seems to reveal a meaningful correlation between coherence in continuously generated random data, and focused mass consciousness during major global events. He has his critics, and I find it reassuring that Dr. Nelson meets them head-on on his web site. He doesn’t shy away from it.

But let’s go ahead and unpack this. If Dr. Nelson’s core hypothesis…that our instrument (the network of “eggs”) will show anomalous deviations associated with Global Events when there is widespread participation or reaction to the event…is proved, then what does it mean?

Well, it would seem to mean that there is such a thing as “Global Consciousness.” It would seem to mean that we humans…each and every one of us…are connected one to another in a very intimate and hitherto unsuspected way. Or it may mean that the planet we live on has a consciousness, and is generating the “cause” for Dr. Nelson’s “effect.” I prefer the first possibility, not being a part of the “gaia-worship” crowd. Either way, it is for you to further explore. Here’s the LINK…and I hope your journey on this particular path is as rewarding as mine.


Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586903/sign-of-california-quake-to-come/?playlist_id=87485

FOX news interviews a retired USGS geologist who predicted the 1989 World Series earthquake. He goes on record predicting another one on the US west coast this month.

So? The Hong Kong observatory has recorded 43 earthquakes so far in the month of March alone.

The following are press releases issued by the Hong Kong Observatory on significant earthquakes during the last three months:

ISSUED DATE-TIME(HKT)
yyyy/mm/dd hh:mm
2011/03/18 11:40
2011/03/17 21:14
2011/03/17 19:15
2011/03/17 14:30
2011/03/17 12:53
2011/03/17 09:12
2011/03/17 06:40
2011/03/15 23:50
2011/03/15 18:10
2011/03/15 02:20
2011/03/14 14:40
2011/03/14 09:40
2011/03/13 19:55
2011/03/13 17:50
2011/03/13 16:15
2011/03/13 10:53
2011/03/13 09:41
2011/03/13 07:52
2011/03/13 06:32
2011/03/13 01:46
2011/03/12 23:32
2011/03/12 22:42
2011/03/12 21:40
2011/03/12 21:21
2011/03/12 19:22
2011/03/12 11:30
2011/03/12 11:09
2011/03/12 11:04
2011/03/12 07:30
2011/03/12 04:40
2011/03/12 03:30
2011/03/12 02:40
2011/03/12 00:07
2011/03/11 19:02
2011/03/11 18:19
2011/03/11 16:10
2011/03/11 15:53
2011/03/11 15:04
2011/03/11 14:01
2011/03/11 01:24
2011/03/10 05:35
2011/03/10 03:00
2011/03/10 02:27
2011/03/09 12:55
2011/03/09 11:00
2011/03/07 08:30
2011/03/03 23:50
2011/03/03 21:12

Links here
 
For millennia people have noticed that earthquakes can be predicted by hours or days by strange animal behavior. Scientists have sometimes noticed this too.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/11/1111_031111_earthquakeanimals.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8593000/8593396.stm
Exactly how the toads sense impending seismic activity is unclear.

The shift in the toads' behaviour coincided with disruptions in the ionosphere, the uppermost electromagnetic layer of the earth's atmosphere, which researchers detected around the time of the L'Aquila quake using a technique known as very low frequency (VLF) radio sounding.

Such changes to the atmosphere have in turn been linked by some scientists to the release of radon gas, or gravity waves, prior to an earthquake.

In the case of the L'Aquila quake, Dr Grant could not determine what caused the disruptions in the ionosphere.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110408/tsc-mysterious-light-spotted-during-japa-98fda55.html
Here, "Earthquake lights" are discussed which are often but not always seen in conjunction with severe earthquakes, particularly a recent one in Japan. These lights could be an important clue to understanding and possibly predicting earthquakes, but are seldom studied because a mechanism to explain them is currently lacking.

Below is a novel explanation of earhquake lights in terms of electromagnetic waves.
http://milesmathis.com/quake.html
Given the lights, the most logical theory would be that the seismic waves create the lights directly. That is, the seismic waves do not stop at the level of the earth, they continue up into the atmosphere. Unless we are shown evidence to the contrary, that is the natural supposition, since there is no hard boundary at the surface of the Earth. Yes, we go from solid to gas, but we do not go from solid to vacuum. Even were the seismic wave strictly a compression wave, it would still continue up into the atmosphere, since the atmosphere is material. But if we suppose that the seismic wave is fundamentally an electromagnetic wave, this doubles our bet. The atmosphere is full of ions, even in the lower levels, so the ladder this wave climbs is even clearer and stronger. The earthquake light is then just the seismic wave showing itself in the atmosphere.

I will be asked why we see it sometimes and not at other times. Simply because atmospheric conditions vary. If there are a lot of ions in the air, the seismic waves will light them up. If not, not. To start with, we may assume that earthquakes don't cause or require certain atmospheric conditions: they can erupt under any sort of sky. The seismic waves then conjoin with the given atmosphere, either creating visible light or not. You will say that is just a hypothesis, as bald as any other, but it is confirmed by recent experiments. In 2005 and 2006, several Japanese authors published papers under the titles, “Conditions of atmospheric electricity variation during seismic wave propagation”1 and “Generation Mechanism of Earth Potential Difference Signal during Seismic Wave Propagation and its Observation Condition”.2 These papers shows just what I am saying: the seismic waves are the direct cause of the atmospheric electricity variations, without any piezoelectric additions, without crystals, without consideration of the ionsphere, and so on. The only reason we don't see the same atmospheric phenomena at all sites is that the atmosphere was not the same to start with. The variation in the atmosphere is dependent on two factors, not one. It is dependent on the local atmospheric conditions, and it is dependent on the quake conditions. The two together create the effects we see.



Obviously, if we were able to more reliably predict the most serious earthquakes, we would be better able to prevent such calamities as that which recently occurred in Japan. I'm sure GTP readers will concur that more research is justified in this area.

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini
 
Interesting research, this is. I haven't read the previous comments, but I doubt his outcome. Not that he measured 53% correct prediction, but more about the randomness created by the computer. A 'standard' Random() computer function is not so very random and if (and that is a big if) indeed his computer program is not truly random, than that gives the subject the opportunity to learn the program's behavior and make a better prediction (consciously or not). At least, I believe that to be true (based on my knowledge on cognition), but have no data to support that the human brain is capable to do that.
 
Interesting research, this is. I haven't read the previous comments, but I doubt his outcome. Not that he measured 53% correct prediction, but more about the randomness created by the computer. A 'standard' Random() computer function is not so very random and if (and that is a big if) indeed his computer program is not truly random, than that gives the subject the opportunity to learn the program's behavior and make a better prediction (consciously or not). At least, I believe that to be true (based on my knowledge on cognition), but have no data to support that the human brain is capable to do that.

The human brain is perfectly able to do that, your brain completely works on patterns and logic automatically without you even thinking about it.
For example; if you observe a club full of people within seconds your brain could notice patterns such as if one side of the room was mostly workmates and the other was mostly friends, even if you cannot completely see the full body of every person. A computer can't even begin to start this extreme level of recognition so fast.

So observing "random" images from a computer is always going to be an unreliable test because a computer is always based on logic, its not physically possible for it to produce a true random function. You can always make the patterns increasingly complex but there will always be patterns and I wouldn't put it past the human brain to begin to recognise these patterns and hence make solid predictions. The more "random" they make the test, the longer it takes for the mind to understand the patterns, but eventually it probably would pick it up.

I think its safe to say that its impossible to predict a truly random event. There always appears to be a pattern or signs that can be picked up. I do not believe in psychics for this simple reason, indeed, many "psychics" employ statistical tactics to provide their predictions (such as making a broad statement like "something bad will happen", chances are something bad will happen every day, and the definition of "bad" is quite subjective).

There's a research group who do tests on psychics by getting them to do a reading on people without meeting them and writing down things about them on pieces of paper. They then get the people having the readings done to pick the prediction which is correct, apparently no-one has been successful in this test as of yet. I can't remember what the name of this was, but I remember hearing a discussion on it on the radio.
 
Last edited:
Back