Credible evidence that we can see into the future to be published soon?

[CptStern]

Extraordinary claims don't come much more extraordinary than this: events that haven't yet happened can influence our behaviour.

Parapsychologists have made outlandish claims about precognition – knowledge of unpredictable future events – for years. But the fringe phenomenon is about to get a mainstream airing: a paper providing evidence for its existence has been accepted for publication by the leading social psychology journal.

What's more, sceptical psychologists who have pored over a preprint of the paper say they can't find any significant flaws.

you'd think someone would have predicted this was about to be published!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19712-evidence-that-we-can-see-the-future-to-be-published.html

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Deja vu

 

[Ennui]

I saw this a week or two ago. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me but from what I read about the experimentation and methodology, I couldn't see any obvious holes in the science... so **** if I know. I'll probably read this paper once it's published just to see if I can wrap my head around it.

 

[Krynn72]

Why would psychologists be the ones who we look to to disprove this? Scientists are probably going to tear this apart without breaking a sweat. I don't really give a shit if psychologists can't find anything to disprove, they're not scientists.

 

[VirusType2]

I read about this the other day. One of the comments at the site where I read it seems to suggest it's got holes in it, and what they said made some sense.

Anyway, I don't really see how 3% is significant. But what do I know.

Anyhow, if it had gone the other way, would they have just given up? No, someone, sometime (like this time), would try a similar experiment again. Eventually, the damn thing will be in favor (like this time).

 

[Remus]

Why would psychologists be the ones who we look to to disprove this? Scientists are probably going to tear this apart without breaking a sweat. I don't really give a shit if psychologists can't find anything to disprove, they're not scientists.

I agree with this. Shouldn't physicist be the ones to test a claim like this?

Anyway, I've seen plenty of documentaries on the subject of time travel, and most scientist would agree that it would be theoretically possible to send and receive information through time. However we are nowhere near advanced enough to build a machine capable of that. To say that the human brain can do something like that naturally (precogs, psychics, etc.) is quite frankly idiotic.

 

[Eejit]

The effects he recorded were small but statistically significant. In another test, for instance, volunteers were told that an erotic image was going to appear on a computer screen in one of two positions, and asked to guess in advance which position that would be. The image's eventual position was selected at random, but volunteers guessed correctly 53.1 per cent of the time.

That may sound unimpressive – truly random guesses would have been right 50 per cent of the time, after all.

Eh, that isn't necessarily statistically significant. And it's actually far more likely that random guess wouldn't have been exactly 50%. Still, perhaps the p values etc. are worked out and shown in the paper itself...

 

[Lobster]

What do you want scientists to look for? Magic timey-wimey dust with their invisible space wands?

The claim is based purely on psychological phenomena, all you can do is look at the quality of the testing and the results, and decide for yourself how relevant they are, it doesn't mater what field you are in.

Personaly 3.1 % doesn't sound signficant enough, but it is an interesting study.

 

[Remus]

What do you want scientists to look for? Magic timey-wimey dust with their invisible space wands?

I want physicists and neuroscientists to take this claim, and analise the brain to see if there is anything whatsoever that can give this ability to supposedly tell the future. So far the analisis of the human brain has shown absolutely nothing that would support the claim of "paranormal" abilities.

If it is as you put it, a purely "psychological phenomena" then I would say that this is nothing more than the human brain taking ques from the environment then extrapolating from that to create a picture of one possible future. That's what I personally think is happening in this experiment.

 

[Solaris]

'Parapsychology', is that even a real field? What University has a department for it? Have they ever found out anything???

 

[Remus]

'Parapsychology', is that even a real field? What University has a department for it? Have they ever found out anything???

No, it's not a "real" field any more than astrology is.

Have you ever heard of Project "Stargate" (no, I don't mean the tv show). It was a government funded research project to prove the reality of paranormal abilities and exploit them for military purposes.
It started in the 70's and they eventually gave up in the mid 90's. The United States military gave up on it, I think that speaks volumes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project

 

[Solaris]

The whole concept of being able to predict the future seems paradoxical to me, becuase the sheer fact that you know what the future is, changes it. Rather like trying to find an atom in quantam mechanics.

 

[Stigmata]

I want physicists and neuroscientists to take this claim, and analise the brain to see if there is anything whatsoever that can give this ability to supposedly tell the future. So far the analisis of the human brain has shown absolutely nothing that would support the claim of "paranormal" abilities.

"Brain analysis" can't prove or disprove something like this, not when we still don't fully understand the brain in the first place. It's like trying to disprove the existence of a sonic boom when all you know about is the Wright Brothers' first two flights.

The whole concept of being able to predict the future seems paradoxical to me, becuase the sheer fact that you know what the future is, changes it. Rather like trying to find an atom in quantam mechanics.

I disagree. Well, not disagree per se, but for all we know the universe could be 100% geometric and all reactions could be time-reversible. If this is the case, it wouldn't really matter whether or not we see the future, because the universe's physical geometry locks us in to a set of paths (read: every case of you seeing the future would be something that was "meant to happen").

 

[Lobster]

Maybe I should explain what I mean.

The paper is trying to determine the existence of the effect, not explain how or why it happens. It is psychologists who determine the validity of the testing, because the tests are based on the reversal of already accepted psychological observations. It is not the job of a physicist to study and record human behavior.

I was mostly annoyed by the use of the term "scientist". Psychology itself is a field of science, and psychologists are a form of scientist. Scientists are not magic people in labcoats who automatically decide if something is true or false, it is a broad term, encompassing hundreds of different fields.

There are many well established elements to our physical world, that still lack a solid explanation.

(Again however, I think this research is bollocks)

 

[Remus]

"Brain analysis" can't prove or disprove something like this, not when we still don't fully understand the brain in the first place. It's like trying to disprove the existence of a sonic boom when all you know about is the Wright Brothers' first two flights.

Granted we don't fully understand the brain YET. However brain scaning technology is getting better all the time, and we aready have accurate computer models of regions of the brain. My point is, it's only a matter of time. However I'm 100% sure that even when we have a highly accurate computer model of the entire human brain, and we completely understand all it's functions and inner workings, you'll stil have people claiming to have paranormal abilities, and others gulible enough to believe them.

Oh and as for the "unable to prove and disprove", that sounds an awfull lot like how it is with god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and right now the "evidence" for precognition is unconvincing to say the least.

 

[Krynn72]

"Brain analysis" can't prove or disprove something like this, not when we still don't fully understand the brain in the first place. It's like trying to disprove the existence of a sonic boom when all you know about is the Wright Brothers' first two flights.

You don't know that. They may discover some element of the theory relies on a false assumption about a field that science has solid knowledge about. Like I said, we should wait for people experts in the field to go over it before taking a bunch of psychologists' words for it.

 

[Unfocused]

Why would psychologists be the ones who we look to to disprove this? Scientists are probably going to tear this apart without breaking a sweat. I don't really give a shit if psychologists can't find anything to disprove, they're not scientists.

Psychologists are scientists. By scientists, you probably meant physicists.

Anyway, I agree that it's a bit weird that psychologists are making this claim.

 

[Lobster]

Like I said, we should wait for people experts in the field to go over it before taking a bunch of psychologists' words for it.

Experts in the field of what exactly? Psychology? Hmm... or perhaps you mean experts in precognition, like Mystic Meg.. or maybe they should just skip to the 'time travel' experts and give Dr. Emmett Brown a call.

 

[Remus]

Experts in the field of what exactly? Psychology? Hmm... or perhaps you mean experts in precognition, like Mystic Meg.. or maybe they should just skip to the 'time travel' experts and give Dr. Emmett Brown a call.

Please stop acting like your question wasn't answered already, it's extremely annoying.

I want physicists and neuroscientists to take this claim, and analise the brain to see if there is anything whatsoever that can give this ability to supposedly tell the future. So far the analisis of the human brain has shown absolutely nothing that would support the claim of "paranormal" abilities.

If it is as you put it, a purely "psychological phenomena" then I would say that this is nothing more than the human brain taking ques from the environment then extrapolating from that to create a picture of one possible future. That's what I personally think is happening in this experiment.

 

[Lobster]

Please stop acting like your question wasn't answered already, it's extremely annoying.

I have no problem with anything you have said, I simply take issue with Krynn's wording. I apologise for bitching about it so much. Consider it dropped.

 

[Remus]

I simply take issue with Krynn's wording.

I think he's doing it on purpose.

Spoiler

JK

 

[Stigmata]

Granted we don't fully understand the brain YET. However brain scaning technology is getting better all the time, and we aready have accurate computer models of regions of the brain. My point is, it's only a matter of time. However I'm 100% sure that even when we have a highly accurate computer model of the entire human brain, and we completely understand all it's functions and inner workings, you'll stil have people claiming to have paranormal abilities, and others gulible enough to believe them.

Now you're just writing off all this research with the loaded phrase of "people claiming to have paranormal activities". Yes, there are hoaxes aplenty, but every so often something truly weird happens that nothing can fully explain. This might be one of those things. The double-slit experiment is another. We don't know everything there is to know about the universe and its machinations, so it doesn't make sense to label some field of study that hasn't been completely explored as being inherently silly and impossible. Imagine how the idea of the flow of electrons across a metal circuit providing power to create light and instantaneous communications across entire countries would seem to you, if you've lived your entire life lighting fires and reading by daylight. It would be crazy, right? Unimaginable! But it works.

I was mostly annoyed by the use of the term "scientist". Psychology itself is a field of science, and psychologists are a form of scientist. Scientists are not magic people in labcoats who automatically decide if something is true or false, it is a broad term, encompassing hundreds of different fields.

There are many well established elements to our physical world, that still lack a solid explanation.

This needs to be reiterated. Psychologists don't need to understand physics to be allowed to use the scientific method.

 

[Remus]

Now you're just writing off all this research with the loaded phrase of "people claiming to have paranormal activities". Yes, there are hoaxes aplenty, but every so often something truly weird happens that nothing can fully explain. This might be one of those things. The double-slit experiment is another. We don't know everything there is to know about the universe and its machinations, so it doesn't make sense to label some field of study that hasn't been completely explored as being inherently silly and impossible. Imagine how the idea of the flow of electrons across a metal circuit providing power to create light and instantaneous communications across entire countries would seem to you, if you've lived your entire life lighting fires and reading by daylight. It would be crazy, right? Unimaginable! But it works.

I'm not completely "righting it off", I'm not by any means a closed minded person, if convincing evidence is presented I'll retract my words that it's nonsense. So far there just hasn't been any convincing evidence. That's exactly why I brought up the "Stargate" Project, to show that these claims have been tested and retested countless times before with negligible results.



"Now you're just writing off all this research with the loaded phrase of "people claiming to have seen the yeti". Yes, there are hoaxes aplenty, but every so often something truly weird happens that nothing can fully explain. This might be one of those things"

See what I did there.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, you put words in my mouth.

 

[Remus]

Yeah, you put words in my mouth.

my point <---


Your head<---

I made that word swich to prove my point that going from "something truly weird happening that nothing can fully explain" to the conclusion that the initial claim is real is flawed logic.

 

[Bad^Hat]

^ He was saying it could be real, not that it is.

I don't really give a shit if psychologists can't find anything to disprove, they're not scientists.

Like I said, we should wait for people experts in the field to go over it before taking a bunch of psychologists' words for it.

Hey I didn't know we had any scientologists on these boards.

 

[The Monkey]

The whole concept of being able to predict the future seems paradoxical to me, becuase the sheer fact that you know what the future is, changes it. Rather like trying to find an atom in quantam mechanics.

Only if you presuppose that time isn't deterministic.

 

[Eejit]

You don't know that. They may discover some element of the theory relies on a false assumption about a field that science has solid knowledge about. Like I said, we should wait for people experts in the field to go over it before taking a bunch of psychologists' words for it.

Except it isn't so much a theory as an observation.

 

[Mirage]

Jesus, I really need to find better ways to fill my time!

 

[Solaris]

Only if you presuppose that time isn't deterministic.

How can knowing the future not change it. By simply becoming aware of the future, neurons in my brain behave differently than they would otherwise, thus changing the future by that must at least.

 

[Vegeta897]

How can knowing the future not change it. By simply becoming aware of the future, neurons in my brain behave differently than they would otherwise, thus changing the future by that must at least.

I think he's saying that what if the future already 'knew' that you were going to see it.

 

[Solaris]

I think he's saying that what if the future already 'knew' that you were going to see it.

Do you not see how this would just spiral into an inifinate loop. You would always have the choice to do different to the future you have seen, and so it isn't the future.

 

[Vegeta897]

You would always have the choice to do different to the future you have seen

Or would you

*points gun at Solaris*

 

[VirusType2]

It's happened to me several times - I might be falling asleep and I guess this is called lucid dreaming, (where I could still wake myself up if I wanted to)... and a vision of a strange and rare event, and the next day (after sleeping): that event.

Just a coincidence, I believe. Still, noteworthy and eyebrow raise-worthy.

It's not like I see exactly what happened, it would be like I dreamed being afraid of a Typhon striking, maybe seeing something from my memory-base of what a Typhoon even looks like, and the next day, a Typhoon strikes my home.

 

[Acepilotf14]

parapsychology

 

[Escaep]

Anyone get that feeling that you're about to experience de ja vu? Especially if it feels like it is about to be bad. Its incredibly difficult to explain, its like you know you're about to experience de ja vu, but you never actually experience it.


On an unrelated note, I almost had an Inception dream the other night. In my dream I laid down to go to sleep and as soon as I fell asleep in my dream I woke up.

 

[Stigmata]

Do you not see how this would just spiral into an inifinate loop. You would always have the choice to do different to the future you have seen, and so it isn't the future.

Maybe existence itself is an infinite loop? In this example, the deterministic chemical reactions that create you are arranged in such a way that you must become aware of your future at that moment.

 

[VirusType2]

Anyone get that feeling that you're about to experience de ja vu? Especially if it feels like it is about to be bad. Its incredibly difficult to explain, its like you know you're about to experience de ja vu, but you never actually experience it.

Yes I've had that.

I've also had de ja vu of having de ja vu, a couple of times. It's a weird feeling. It's like, oh shit - "this is de ja vu!"... and you remember this happening before, right? But then, you remember having de ja vu, while you are having de ja vu.

It's like a loop if you aren't careful, or it will repeat forever, perhaps. That's what it felt like to me.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

What's the difference between "seeing" the future and expecting something to happen, which does?

It happens to me, and I'm sure many many people experience it all of the time.

You ever start humming a song, then it comes on the radio? Chances are it was extremely likely, especially since radio stations tend to broadcast in patterns and rotations.

The brain is a powerful tool for predicting the future, but there is always outlaying circumstances and events that can alter what may seem to be an obvious outcome...

 

[Dan]

The human brain is very complex. Higher consciousness is basically a future forecasting program. What will happen when you let go of a pencil? You already know that it will fall to the ground. You don't have to derive any mathematical models. Your mind has a built in physical model of the world and can predict what will happen. If the mind is as complex as the world we live in, then maybe it has complex pathways for figuring out other types of future events.