|
23 Nov 22 - 01:23 PM (#4158505) Subject: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Precognition is an umbrella term that includes premonition. Is human consciousness an illusion? No, it is fundamental. Consciousness is no pseudo-science—it seems nonphysical, but is very much a biological phenomenon. It is not an illusion overall. So is precognition. There are people without this awareness, just like visual variations. Mediums are damned, but some psychics have an imprimatur. I remember my 1st short-lived premonition since it was a visual dream-like display of headlines at age 15. Of course, not all precognition-like events are what they seem. Deja Vu is only loosely related. There are few cases beyond a status quo explanation. Ancient civilizations gave this 'feeling' a name and its mythology is still going strong. I have no recent big or small suspected premonitions. Most things are just caution, expected events, and rationalizations. Some theories give some credence to the phenomenon. |
|
23 Nov 22 - 01:25 PM (#4158506) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Max Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness." |
|
23 Nov 22 - 01:47 PM (#4158511) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I knew this thread would be started by you! |
|
23 Nov 22 - 06:00 PM (#4158527) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog "Deja Vu is only loosely related." How so? Can you let me know the UK lottery numbers for this coming Saturday? Can you let me know who is going to win the World Cup? I already have a sense of deja vu anticipating your response. Or is that precognition? Either way, the sooner you can tell me who is going to win the World Cup the more money I can make. Thanks in advance. (Or is that thanks in the present or thanks in the past?) |
|
23 Nov 22 - 06:04 PM (#4158529) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Yeah, Dave. Me too. More obscurantist verbal diarrhoea... |
|
23 Nov 22 - 06:26 PM (#4158531) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel See, Dave is a precog. Deja Vu? Think about it, it's sort of precog in reverse presentation. All the numbers are involved. France You're welcomed, in the future ;*) My precog experiences were all future mass knowledge events. As a young man I took them seriously to the point of going in person to the FBI and warning of the future event and the precaution that could be taken. The future event happened and no precautions were taken. Since that outcome I just say c'est la vie when they happen. Now I just use them for my own protection. |
|
23 Nov 22 - 06:47 PM (#4158533) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Your "precog experiences" are just complete bollocks. It's about as likely as seven-legged little blue men camping out on Saturn's rings and you know it. Do spare us the unnecessary clicks. |
|
23 Nov 22 - 09:38 PM (#4158542) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Throw out bait to people who are unable to control their responses. Yeah! |
|
24 Nov 22 - 02:49 AM (#4158551) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Senoufou When I was about twelve, I had a dream one night that my younger sister was threatened by a man down in the woods near our house. He had a black dog with him in the dream. A few days later, she was playing there with some friends when a horrible man appeared (with a black dog!) and exposed himself to the girls. Luckily they ran like hell, and the Police were informed. Now I wonder if I'd seen this chap myself in the woods before the event, and sensed that he was 'strange'. I think 'precognition' is merely our subconscious making sense of subtle warning signs and alerting us. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 03:57 AM (#4158557) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick I've had déjà vu before. DC |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:04 AM (#4158561) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I've had déjà fu - the feeling that I've been kicked in the nuts before by a martial arts practitioner... |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:15 AM (#4158563) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw As a former vegetarian I have frequent déjà vu - I keep feeling I've been herbivore. What did the Roman say when he got déjà vu? "I feel like I've ben hur before." |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:28 AM (#4158565) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Knock knock Who's there? Déjà vu Knock knock |
|
24 Nov 22 - 05:57 AM (#4158570) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I kept imagining I was an Indian prince before I had Rajah Vu |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:29 AM (#4158577) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'll swear I've tasted this mustard before. I think I've got Dijon vu. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:35 AM (#4158578) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Here's one that seems appropriate for this thread: Déjà moo - the feeling that I've come across this bullshit before... |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:40 AM (#4158579) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor I had Vuja De once, I walked into this new restaurant and thought "Man, I've never been here before." |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:43 AM (#4158581) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well I've had déjà vu and amnesia at the same time but I have this strange feeling that I've forgotten to mention this before... |
|
24 Nov 22 - 07:11 AM (#4158582) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Nigel Parsons . . . and still a restriction to one UK politics thread in BS. Maybe there should be a campaign for only one Donuel thread ;) |
|
24 Nov 22 - 07:52 AM (#4158585) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Backwoodsman And on that, Nigel, you and I are in absolute, complete agreement! ;-) |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:07 AM (#4158592) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Alleluia! |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:15 AM (#4158594) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Backwoodsman ….but it’s also perfectly simple to ignore the bait which Donuel frequently dangles under the noses of his easy-to-catch prey. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:21 AM (#4158595) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Today it's called MOAB. My FBI visit was about 9-11 and a bit later a 16 sq. ft. painting of the twin towers on fire with hands reaching up to the sky 2 years before the event. It was sold to a Texas couple before 9-11. They contacted me afterward in shock. My hijacking deterrent has yet to be implemented. We are prone to think our own reality is shared by everyone, but nothing is further from the truth. There are things we share and things we don't. We are as different as our faces. It is narcissistic to think you have the only handle on real global events and feelings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:34 AM (#4158597) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor Oooookay. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:36 AM (#4158598) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Has it been a good mushroom season? |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:37 AM (#4158599) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel A guru is looking for prey, a despot is looking for prey, a sociopath is seeking prey, etc. If you think my motives are evil where is the evidence? I understand the phrase "If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him". Following a leader is dangerous. Some questions are beneficial to people. More beneficial than the motives of people who don't want others to hear the questions. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 10:48 AM (#4158601) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Nobody thinks your motives are evil. Some of us have other possible explanations for your antics, that's all. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 11:36 AM (#4158605) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Georgiansilver I believe I just had some precognition of this thread dying a death. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 12:51 PM (#4158617) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Are you sure you're not just being prescient? |
|
24 Nov 22 - 01:13 PM (#4158619) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk Possible alternative explanation: Pratchett's Law is valid, and I can prove it, provided you're willing to widen your field of view a tad. Brace yourselves ---
|
|
24 Nov 22 - 01:21 PM (#4158622) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk --- Rats: pressed the wrong button before I could add the punchline: An SF short story was published, portraying the explosion of an atomic bomb, before the Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. After much grilling of the author, this was deemed to be simple coincidence. .... The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 02:03 PM (#4158627) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen One night I recorded an episode of The Lone Gunmen, a spin-off series from The X Files, but didn't watch it until the next evening. The morning after recording it is memorable because we turned the TV on and the 9/11 attack was all over the news. (Bear in mind the time difference because I live in Oz.) When I saw the footage of the attack it looked like a Hollywood movie scene and I kept asking myself if this was real. The Lone Gunmen (TV series) "Similarities to 9/11 attacks in pilot storyline "In the pilot episode, which aired March 4, 2001 (six months prior to the September 11 attacks[5]), rogue members of the U.S. government remotely hijack an airliner departing Boston, planning to crash it into the World Trade Center, and let anti-American terrorist groups take credit, to gain support for a profitable new war following the Cold War. The heroes ultimately override the controls, foiling the plot." So by the time I watched the episode that night it was a very, very eerie feeling seeing almost exactly the same scenario of terrorists intending to carry out the attack on the Twin Towers but given that it was a fictional show, of course the heroes saved the day. There are varying explanations for this coincidence. One is that the writer of the show had a premonition of the impending attack. Another is that the writer or the person who had the inspiration for the plot read the minds of the people who would have been planning the attack at the time the show was written and produced. Another is that it was sheer coincidence. But the biggest coincidence - or maybe precognitive action - in my mind is that it was aired on Australian TV the night before the real-life attack. Could someone on the TV programming team have been privy to the terrorists' plans? Could it have been part of a wider conspiracy? Or was it just an eerie coincidence? I personally have had a number of precognitive experiences in my life. On one occasion I suspected that I picked up the nasty intentions of a manager I used to work for - he was plotting something negative - and that was why I had a strong feeling that something bad was about to happen. (It did.) He had probably been thinking about his plan for a while. Part of the process of picking up signs of a person's intentions can be observing body language, hearing what that person says, the inflections in her/his voice, etc but sometimes it is an unexplainable source of information. I would appreciate it if the people who are coming into this thread just to throw personal insults at Donuel or anyone who may wish to discuss the topic, or who just want an excuse to make the usual schoolboy jokes about male genitalia and try to deflect the conversation from the topic of the thread would just do the right thing and leave the discussion. You don't need to be in this discussion if you are not intending to actually discuss the topic in a serious manner. Go find another playground to play in, please. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:18 PM (#4158637) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Maloc was interesting...but I had a lot of similar-minded folks who were also presient. I consider my 'receptors' to be in the back row of the second violin section compared to 'conductors' who are truly presient. So, if one can accept this ability is valid with some people we could be looking at a renaissance of expanding consciousness as outlined in the documentary 'Third Eye Spies. There is not enough research in this area so it goes in and out of favor understandably. In the meantime "trust your gut". |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:35 PM (#4158639) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Anne Lister There's a podcast available via BBC Sounds called "The Premonitions Bureau". Someone tried to collect premonitions/precognitions and find out just how accurate they were in terms of news events which subsequently happened. This followed on from a number of reports of people who had experiences of precognitive dreams or visions of the Aberfan tragedy. It's a fascinating podcast. Cutting to the conclusions - there were very, very few people who were able to foretell future events (but those who did were uncannily accurate), and there is a huge question around what use this information is. If you could prevent the event from taking place, what exactly was the premonition? And if you can't, because there's insufficient detail to do that (which is the most frequent situation) then what use is the premonition? I have had dreams which portrayed a very odd, but very vivid, event, and later seen news footage which showed precisely what my dream had shown, but the dream was imprecise about date, location and all other details, so of no practical use at all. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 04:58 PM (#4158640) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk I'll step back from this debate, if you don't mind, folks. I've an entirely too scientific way of looking at life on the one hand; on the other, well, a closed mouth gathers no foot. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 05:03 PM (#4158642) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler If it is possible to in some way receive data from a parallel universe that is almost the same as ours but running with its clock a little ahead of ours, that would be one way of avoiding the paradox about changing events. You would no longer be making the dream/vision void if the event did not happen because you warned people. Robin |
|
24 Nov 22 - 05:29 PM (#4158643) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Nicely stated, MaJoC. Much respect! Although I think that you could be part of the discussion even if you are presenting a contrary argument because it is a topic for discussion and not a foregone conclusion. One of the problems with trying to discuss anything outside of accepted "fact" is that a lot of people start by not looking at evidence and begin just by making fun of the people who may have something interesting to share. The outcome of that - sometimes unintended, but in some cases definitely intended - is that the discussion becomes stifled and the people who are interested in the topic are publicly ridiculed. Any person who may have had the chance to open her/his mind to broader possibilities tends to scuttle back into a safe place and avoid the discussion. Even scientists are afraid to ruin their academic reputations by publicly declaring an interest in certain phenomena. This is not useful for studying phenomena which may or may not have a rational scientific explanation. We will never be able to study a phenomenon properly when people are afraid to discuss the topic, or especially if certain people are hell-bent determined to prevent other people from discussing the topic. As Shakespeare aptly wrote, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” We don't know everything about the way the world works or the way humans work. We may never know everything, but with every study, every search for knowledge we get closer to knowing more about life and the world. It is arrogant to say, let's stop analysing phenomena because we already think we know what they are all about. Rational analysis and respectful discussion is the way forward, in my opinion. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 05:44 PM (#4158644) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie What about dreams that serve as warnings? I once told my sister in law about a dream I’d had the night before where she, her husband, HER sister in law and I were at my parents’ house and we decided to go to my sister’s house to shoot pool. In the dream it was a ‘dark and stormy night’ and my sis in law was driving with her sis in law beside her in the front seat. My brother complained about her driving and it made her mad. She pulled over and said, OK- YOU drive. She and her sis in law got in the back seat and my brother and I got in front. At a corner, the car slid on the wet pavement and we went over the edge of the embankment. My brother and I were killed- but the backseat passengers survived. More to the dream but those are the salient points. A few months later, on a dark and stormy night, I stopped in at my parents’ house where I found my sis, my brother and her sister in law there. (That woman lived in the Portland area and I had never before seen her without her own husband being present.) The proposal was made that we go shoot pool at my sister’s house. We did not go. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:15 PM (#4158648) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well I've dreamed ten thousand things that never happened in the past nor in the future, not a single thing that ever came true, and I've got better things to do that sit around fearfully hoping or wishing or expecting them to come true. I'm afraid that there's something of a quasi-religious thing about these "precog" claims, in that you know that your claim can't be disproven, just like the existence of God can't be disproven. There's something in the psyche of some people that urges them to set themselves apart in some kind of unchallengeable mystical way. I wouldn't know why that would be for those persons, but hey ho. Do note that the originator of this thread deals in certainties on this topic with no humble doubting. Again, the paradoxical certainty of evidence-innocent belief. Just like religious belief, let's have evidence. And let's remember that uncorroborated witness can never get over the high bar required by real evidence. In other words, nothing to see here, not without evidence! |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:23 PM (#4158649) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw That=than. |
|
24 Nov 22 - 06:54 PM (#4158656) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well the Filk touched on coincidence up there. Here's the first lines of the wiki entry on coincidence: "A coincidence is a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances that have no apparent causal connection with one another. The perception of remarkable coincidences may lead to supernatural, occult, or paranormal claims. Or it may lead to belief in fatalism, which is a doctrine that events will happen in the exact manner of a predetermined plan." I dream about 9-11 (more likely, something approximating to it), and it happens shortly after. I might want to claim some sinister connection. But the fact is that hundreds of millions of other people didn't dream that dream. I can claim that I have some mystical quality not possessed by others. Or I can face the fact that my dream and the event were nothing more than coincidence. Worth bearing in mind that any two events, no matter how trivial, that occur together represent a coincidence. My cat just scratched her ear just as Fiona Bruce on the telly said the word "tax." That is just as much a coincidence as the most dramatic coincidence imaginable. It's utterly unremarkable. So trivial that it doesn't bear dwelling on. But trivial and unremarkable doesn't make it any less a coincidence and the chances of the same two things happening together again are vanishingly small, just like most other coincidences. But you'd rather claim that your "precog dream" is more likely precog than just a simple coincidence? Well good luck with that. Science, facts and figures are utterly against you and your only fightback is to give us evidence. Proper evidence would be good. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 12:25 AM (#4158660) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie When you say "you", Steve, who is the you? In the instance I related, there is no way online or otherwise to present documentation. Not to worry- I just passed on an interesting dream. By the way, the night they/we decided not to go shoot pool, it was my SIL's sister in law that said that SHE wasn't going anywhere. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 12:52 AM (#4158664) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: robomatic I recorded that original Lone Gunmen episode when it aired. Sent it to my brother without watching it and got a very excited call later in the year. An incidence of coincidence but not prescience or precog. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 01:34 AM (#4158665) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen robomatic, why was the target of the World Trade Centre chosen for the Lone Gunmen episode? Is that just coincidence? Surely there would be hundreds, if not thousands of other possible targets. And hijacking an airliner and planning to crash it into the WTC. Surely there are many possible ways for terrorists to attack a target. It's a very eerie set of coinciding events, one being fictional and created prior to the actual event. I'm not saying that precognition was involved. I'm just saying that the alignment of the fictional event and the real event is very chilling. Ebbie, I remember many years ago I was driving alone at night, heading up a poorly lit, very steep and winding hill in the suburbs, and I was driving in the right hand (middle) lane. (Remember we drive on the left here, BTW.) There were two lanes going up the hill, and only one lane coming down. As I was driving up the hill, with no vision of any cars coming the other way due to the winding road and no sound of other vehicles, I had a stronger and stronger feeling that I had to change lanes to the left hand lane, and the more I tried to rationalise it, the stronger the feeling became. I moved to the left lane, just as a car came speeding down the hill, in the incorrect lane, i.e. on my side of the road, and I would have had a head-on collision at speed if I hadn't changed lanes when I did. I probably would have been very seriously injured or I may even have been killed. There is a different feeling, or sense of urgency, to a precognitive message than a simple thought process like "I wonder if...". I also find that if I have had a dream which stays with me and plays on my mind it is more likely to be of some significance, instead of just one of the usual dreams which are my subconscious processing previous events or current issues. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:06 AM (#4158666) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie Helen, my dreams tend to be very vivid- and non-meaningful. Night before last I dreamt that I was spending the night on the couch of a couple whom I didn't really know well and who had invited me out of kindness and inertia. I over-stayed my lackluster welcome, even though by the third night my car had been delivered. I woke up, wondering why I hadn't thanked them and left when the car came. Hey, I didn't even properly know the people. Last night one of my dreams had me doing laundry. Loads and loads of it. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:29 AM (#4158668) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Senoufou Hee hee Ebbie. doing loads of laundry! What a boring old dream that was! Many years ago (when I was 'young'!) I sometimes dreamt that I was out in public at a shopping centre completely naked! None of the other shoppers appeared to notice, and in the dream I wondered how I'd managed to forget to put on my clothes. I jolly well hope those dreams weren't a premonition! (Imagine the BBC local News - "Elderly lady found wandering naked in Norwich city centre tells Police she'd forgotten to get dressed!" |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:53 AM (#4158670) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Doing loads of laundry? Now that's precognitive! I tend to dream that I can't remember where I parked my car, or I am trying to get home and no matter how hard I try I just can't make any headway. They aren't precognitive, but remembering where I parked the car at the shopping centre is a bit difficult IRL sometimes. (I'm getting older. By the time I really can't find it I'll be too old to drive anyway. Problem solved!) |
|
25 Nov 22 - 03:52 AM (#4158673) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Helen, why were you driving in the middle lane? Perhaps your sense that you should be in ihe inside lane steps from the fact that there was no reason for you to be there unless you were overtaking! |
|
25 Nov 22 - 04:01 AM (#4158674) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen No, I knew that the left lane ended within a few hundred yards so I was pre-empting changing lanes because there were no other cars in either lane going up the hill. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 04:19 AM (#4158675) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "You" wasn't referring to a specific individual, Ebbie. Dreams are an incredibly interesting topic. Over-interpreting them whilst ignoring the overwhelming probability of coincidence, on the other hand, is problematical. Remember Occam's razor. Coincidence is the simplest, most obvious, most probable though most prosaic explanation for that one-in-thousands dream that seems to chime with real events. Also, earnestly searching for similarities with real events whilst ignoring differences sounds like confirmation bias. I didn't see the aforementioned Lone Gunmen programme so I should proceed cautiously, but, from the account of it here, it isn't difficult to pick out a plethora of differences between it and the events of 9-11. Inconvenient but somewhat glaring, I'd have thought. And I get that naked-in-public dream a lot, Eliza (down, girls...). It's comforting to hear that I'm not alone! |
|
25 Nov 22 - 04:20 AM (#4158676) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen In Oz, the Keep Left Unless Overtaking signs only apply to some - not all - speed limit areas of more than 80 kph. This was a 60 kph suburban road. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 04:56 AM (#4158679) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick why was the target of the World Trade Centre chosen for the Lone Gunmen episode? Is that just coincidence? Surely there would be hundreds, if not thousands of other possible targets. And hijacking an airliner and planning to crash it into the WTC. Surely there are many possible ways for terrorists to attack a target. The World Trade Centre was an obvious target. Perhaps Osama Bin Laden saw the episode and that's where he got his idea from. He had six months to put his plan into action. DC |
|
25 Nov 22 - 05:03 AM (#4158681) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Yes, that could be another explanation Doug. There are so many possible explanations. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 05:31 AM (#4158684) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw And never forget the Towering Inferno, a disaster that started on the 85th floor... The Twin Towers were among the most stickie-out buildings in New York. If you're going to use planes instead of bombs, their choice as a target was almost a no-brainer. And we saw Satan's image in the smoke and dust. Who'd have thought it... Imagination is a wonderful thing but it only legitimately informs our next moves when it's grounded in reality, never in mysticism. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 06:22 AM (#4158687) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well I was driving on a long, straight three-lane road in Perth, WA a few years ago. My elderly Uncle John, who'd lived in Perth since the ten-quid ticket days, was in the passenger seat, supposedly navigating us. "Move into the middle lane now, Steve..." which I did. Two leisurely miles later, "Er, John, why am I in the middle lane...?" "Cos you need to be ready to turn right soon..." |
|
25 Nov 22 - 07:33 AM (#4158691) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Anne Lister I'll say this again - the topic has been explored in a very thorough podcast, "The Premonitions Bureau". Available via BBC Sounds, but possibly elsewhere as well. They attempted to find out whether some people were able to accurately predict future events. See my earlier post. It's interesting how some people posting to this thread are totally convinced of their point of view, it seems without any level of curiosity about why others hold a different one or whether there has been any scientific study. My post is simply to let you know that yes, there was an attempt to study and record precognitive dreams and there may have been others, too, which I haven't heard about. The conclusion, though, was that it was a very small percentage of accurate premonitions, but that those who came up with one often came up with more than one. As the notion of foretelling the future has been part of the human psyche as far back as we can tell, and that as far back as we can tell there have been those who have wanted to believe in it and those who have scoffed at them, this thread is doomed, I fear, to follow the same pathways. But why be unpleasant to those who don't share your opinion? |
|
25 Nov 22 - 07:37 AM (#4158693) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel There are some preliminary experimental neurobiological experiments done with telepathine and its effects on precognition. telepahine and harmaline In the 60's I did an experiment with telepathine with a person who would look at individual photos and I under the influence of telepathine would guess what he saw. I was about 75% correct. Telepathine was then an ingredient in Romilar cough syrup. I have no experience with ayahuasca but telepathin (a variant of telepathine) is an ingredient. All of the findings regarding telepahine suggest a possibility that precognition can be enhanced chemically. Is there ironclad proof, no. But it is a question that is highly significant. With more research there will be more answers, along with the thousands of years of experiential data. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 08:27 AM (#4158698) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel To be clear I did not have the date 9-11 or another name of the precog event of a commercial hijacking that I warned the FBI about. The precaution I envisioned was a pilot activated knock out gas, once he had his oxygen mask on. In my painting, I did not see Satan in the smoke but I did have a face that was smoking a cigarette that resembled Art Bell. I used an old canvas that already had an impressionistic face of despair. I tried but failed to send the painting to Art Bell and ended up selling it on Ebay. For whatever reason the last addition to the painting was a tidal wave. The final work I named 'Pole Shift'. My wife was happy to get the picture out of the house. In retrospect the numerous pink and blue long arms with a hand floating upwards related to deaths even from a pandemic. Imagination at a late date can mean anything. Other than neurobiological factors in precog I have also imagined that we may have evolved sensory means of seeing a dimensional quality that time may have some depth and bredth and is not just a moving point. After all, time does stretch in the presence of mass. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 08:41 AM (#4158701) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome After all, time does stretch in the presence of mass. Yea. When I was forced to go to mass as a kid, time stretched no end. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 09:54 AM (#4158705) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor Donuel, this is what you wrote yesterday morning when you clearly claimed to have predicted the 9/11 tragedy and now, this morning, you're disowning that claim- "My FBI visit was about 9-11 and a bit later a 16 sq. ft. painting of the twin towers on fire with hands reaching up to the sky 2 years before the event. It was sold to a Texas couple before 9-11. They contacted me afterward in shock. My hijacking deterrent has yet to be implemented" To be clear, my skepticism in response to your post yesterday was borne out of a recognition of your lack of credibility not the possibility of the existence of precognition. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 11:04 AM (#4158712) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Yeah, Father Curran, lovely man bless his cotton socks, never knew how to round off his sermon... Anne, this is not a question of being unpleasant. It is a question of saying to someone that he is making assertions that go beyond science and which he simply can't corroborate. In other words, making unfounded claims. Such claims deserve no less than stern challenges. The only alternative to that is to ignore, but that means left unchallenged and left standing. Not ideal. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 11:52 AM (#4158718) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk OK, folks: enough with the brickbats, before the MudElfs notice. Periscope *up* --- The precog/non-precog divide looks to me like the old free-will/predestination debate (for which one workable solution is "Free will is what predestination looks like from the inside"). The human mind is good at looking just a little bit into the future, in the interests both of knowing where your next meal is coming from, and of not becoming your local friendly neighbourhood tiger's next meal. We can call it "prediction", or "intuition", or even "precog" in certain circumstances: take the present and the immediate past, including cues and clues we may not even be aware of, and extrapolate. That makes humans good at pulling signal out of overwhelming noise. Beware, though, of pulling signal out of pure noise, however striking it may be; and the more striking it is, the more we must beware of hidden tigers. Sometimes we need the shock, eg from front-line news footage from Ukraine; other times, well, think "illegal immigrants" or "Area 51" to taste. As St Paul said of the spirits: Listen to them, but *test* what they say. (Or, according to the three-letter agencies: In God we trust; everybody else, we polygraph.) PS: In the interests of testing the spirits, I second Steve's last point. Even in the scientific world, there's many a journal which exists solely to game the "scientific papers" system. At least here, the rebuttal will be next to the statement by the party of the first part. --- Dive! Dive! Dive! --- |
|
25 Nov 22 - 12:39 PM (#4158724) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk Helen> trying to discuss anything outside of accepted "fact" Difficulties with that happen in scientific circles, too; it helps, though, if those proposing something new can provide stepping stones from the currently-acceptable to the proposed new ground. One friend, who's an Astrophysicist, is on record as having said it was wonderful to her to realise how much intuition played a part in science, as long as it's backed up afterwards by rigorous proofs and/or observations. Meanwhile, back at the first post: Donuel> Is human consciousness an illusion? No, it is fundamental. The way I'd put it is: Data is just bits. Information is bits plus human interpretation. Significance really is in the eye of the beholder. Example: It took people Simply Ages to notice the hole in the ozone layer, because a machine had been told that readings from a satellite which were *this* far from expected results couldn't possibly be anything but instrumental error. Eventually, I believe, someone thought to ask why there were so few readings getting through the filters .... and the real error was found to have been staring everybody in the face for years. Oh, and thanks, Helen, for the reassurance. I'm too used to being told I'm an idiot, and, gullible as I am, I tend to believe what I'm told. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 01:37 PM (#4158731) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen I read a couple of books by Joseph McMoneagle who was involved with thehStargate Project "Stargate Project was a secret U.S. Army unit established in 1978 at Fort Meade, Maryland, by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and SRI International (a California contractor) to investigate the potential for psychic phenomena in military and domestic intelligence applications." McMoneagle's books are balanced and factual. If you want to read an account of well-conducted experiments from 1978 to 1995, I can recommend reading his books. Other project participants have also written books about the experiments. You can come to your own conclusions, but at least it is a starting point for looking at actual experiments and results. The U.S. Army funded the project for 17 years so they must have decided that there was a reason for keeping it going. Then someone decided to cast aspersions on it and close it down. I can only imagine that the type of closed mindedness and unwillingness to discuss factual evidence that is often shown towards unexplained phenomena came to power. The reason that the Stargate Project was initiated was because Russia was conducting similar experiments in military and international intelligence applications. The first book I read was The Stargate Chronicles: Memoirs of a Psychic Spy and he goes into detail about how the project was set up and the experiments conducted. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 01:40 PM (#4158732) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel loose rear tube torpedo number 3... dive dive... just kiddin. I like the jokes. As usual Maloc makes the most informed sense. I especially like "The human mind is good at looking just a little bit into the future, in the interests both of knowing where your next meal is coming from". I call it like I see it, and assemble a hypothesis. Validating a years long precog experience after the event actually happens is a biased conclusion but it feels justifiable. Luck. coincidence, inevitability perhaps but the feeling is real enough to create the Greek myth of Cassandra. Prescience phenomenon or just looking at consciousness from the inside out does seem to be backed up by biochemical catalysts like telepathine. I wonder how that chemical got its name??? Consciouness |
|
25 Nov 22 - 01:59 PM (#4158733) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "It's interesting how some people posting to this thread are totally convinced of their point of view, it seems without any level of curiosity about why others hold a different one or whether there has been any scientific study." This is problematical. The only person here who I've detected to be totally convinced of their point of view is the person who started the thread. You will see, if you read back, certainties in his statements. It's not my point of view that that's fallacious. It IS fallacious, simply because of the lack of expressed doubt and the lack of caveats. Not to speak of the contradiction pointed to by gillymor. Just as I don't know whether God exists, I don't know whether precognition is a genuine phenomenon. I'm a severe sceptic on both counts, but it's wrong to suggest that I'm "totally convinced" of my point of view. The way these things are expressed to us makes it impossible to contradict them with complete certainty. You can tell me that Neptune is made of green cheese and I can't prove that you're wrong. Deliberately putting things beyond science in these ways is valid ONLY if you can present evidence that really IS evidence. The trouble with the thread instigator is that he has little interest in doing that. It's just untestable claims. That doesn't do it for me. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:00 PM (#4158734) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Yes, I second Donuel's comment, MaJoC. I was thinking about exactly this, but you beat me to it: "The human mind is good at looking just a little bit into the future, in the interests both of knowing where your next meal is coming from, and of not becoming your local friendly neighbourhood tiger's next meal." I've recounted this previously about Joseph McMoneagle, but in his introductory chapter he mentions that when he was a soldier involved in combat in Vietnam he had a sense of when and where danger was lurking nearby. One of his army colleagues said that the others realised that he could do this, and the quote was, "when he zigged, we zigged, when he zagged, we zagged" and they were able to avoid some danger too. That was one of the reasons he was chosen for the Stargate Project. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:01 PM (#4158735) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D The wiring of our brains is so complex that dreams, memories, wishes, fears...etc., can be processed to create new combinations and patterns that **seem** like something we should be concerned over. This happens often in dreams, and 'may' reflect actual memories combined with desires and fears,etc. ...Sometimes it can be useful to follow up on them in real time.... but be very, very wary of assuming they they arrive in some particular order by some arcane outside process inserting them to warn us or explain too much. The "will to believe" is a tempting thing.. even beyond standard religious settings. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:07 PM (#4158736) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Helen I was interviewed by a Navel Intelligence officer regarding a position during the Stargate years regarding remote viewing when I lived in Rochester NY. I did not see a stable future in it but he was kind and welcomed future referrals. The CIA was not nice and hated 'no' for an answer. I was probably a likely target since I was an empathetic hypnotist at that time. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 02:32 PM (#4158741) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen I'm impressed, Donuel. What a chance you missed. You could have seen those experiments for yourself. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 05:08 PM (#4158756) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel None of those guys turned out happy. In fact some had tragic ends and some were disgruntled to this day as reported in the Washington Post. The good ones were a danger and the mediocre ones were trashed. Yep some died in very suspicious circumstances. Ingo Swan could blow your mind. The feeling of being watched followed by turning around and seeing someone staring at you is a different kind of thing than precog imo. the oven is beeping... |
|
25 Nov 22 - 05:18 PM (#4158758) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen McMoneagle mentioned a few precognitive experiences, I think. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 05:22 PM (#4158759) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well in my misspent late youth I was a far-leftie activist (and as I've often said, proud to call Blair Peach my good friend) and a prominent and active member of CND in my local area. We had a Saturday street stall in Loughton which was routinely filmed by the police from the top of a building opposite and my phone was bugged for several years (it wasn't hard to detect that in those low-tech times). So what? A naughty boy I wasn't. I look back on those times and the most important thing is that I don't want a bloody medal. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 07:33 PM (#4158769) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Well then, here is a friend of the workers medal friend medal |
|
25 Nov 22 - 07:54 PM (#4158771) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Doubtless your current allies will support you even for that silliness. I usually ignore your links but I actually clicked on that one, to my chagrin. Then said allies will excoriate those of us who think that you have very little of substance to contribute, even to your own thread. Odd really. |
|
25 Nov 22 - 11:05 PM (#4158780) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen I guess if you didn't want a medal, that would be the medal you wouldn't want. I don't understand the relevance of your post at 25 Nov 22 - 05:22 PM to the topic being discussed. |
|
26 Nov 22 - 04:41 AM (#4158785) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor At any rate we'd all be best advised to tread lightly around Donuel, given his connections to the FBI, the CIA and no doubt numerous other international spy and police organizations. |
|
26 Nov 22 - 04:51 AM (#4158786) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw My riposte to constant and almost certainly exaggerated claims about dabblings with influence with the CIA, FBI, etc. Many have dabbled here and there, including me now and again, but dabblings are not achievements and need not be repeatedly shouted from the rooftops. By the way, if it's thread drift that worries you, let it go. It happens all the time and most of us are guilty. Thread drift can defuse and amuse. Hang on, I've just had a déjà vu... |
|
26 Nov 22 - 04:56 AM (#4158787) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw What gillymor said (I think we cross-posted). And I should timorously add that I'm amazed that Donuel going large with said connections hasn't led to a number of midnight knocks on his door... |
|
26 Nov 22 - 07:39 AM (#4158798) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Going back to an earlier and more sensible tangent of this thread When you think you have seen an impressionist painting before - Degas vu (Credit to my daughter for that one :-) ) |
|
26 Nov 22 - 08:31 AM (#4158803) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor I have a strange feeling that we've been on this more sensible tangent before. Oh well, here's that famous Yogi Berraism- "It's like deja vu all over again." |
|
26 Nov 22 - 09:26 AM (#4158806) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I sat on the bog, then realised I didn't have to. I was suffering from déjà poo. |
|
26 Nov 22 - 09:54 AM (#4158811) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk > I should timorously add that I'm amazed that Donuel going large with > said connections hasn't led to a number of midnight knocks on his > door... He's a known quantity to them. Worry about your own front door, Steve .... unless of course you've installed an Internet-based doorbell and camera, in which case they know all about you anyway, as they bought the info wholesale. Ain't surveillance capitalism a wonderful thing? |
|
26 Nov 22 - 10:31 AM (#4158812) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I think their interest in me expired many moons ago. It'll more likely be Starmer reading my posts and booting me out of the party... |
|
26 Nov 22 - 12:55 PM (#4158830) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen MaJoC said, "Ain't surveillance capitalism a wonderful thing?" I recently watched the second season of the UK TV show called The Capture. This week there were three news articles which could have been taken directly from that second season: UK restricts Chinese-linked cameras in government buildings over security fears US bans approval of new Huawei and ZTE equipment from China There's a woman haunting the internet. She was created by AI . Now she won't leave The creators of the show were probably using a predictive trajectory on where technology is currently and what its capabilities are, rather than any precognitive skills. Eerie, nonetheless. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 05:30 AM (#4158872) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk .... Hm: that ban on Chinese kit has been brewing since Agent Orange's time in the White House; the phasing-out of Huawei kit in the UK was on the BBC Red Button last year sometime. The Capture wasn't precognition, I'm afraid, simply someone trawling the trade press for script ideas, and writing an Awful Warning in the best science-fiction tradition. That reminds me: While the 'Cat's not napping, I should add some of my other filk, including Turn The Page Over, which is relevant here. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 05:38 AM (#4158873) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Yes, dystopian fiction, but the possibility is very real. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 10:42 AM (#4158915) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Maloc was insightful. While the Navy was polite the CIA was insistent and sent 4 different recruiters for their evil motives. (Their head of hypnosis that was around during the Sirhan Sirhan days, had recently died) They even violently attacked me and broke in twice. As a known quantity I ended my 12-year career, got married, and left the arena. Like I said they do not like getting NO for an answer. I am no longer on their radar. The CIA have changed a bit by learning from mistakes, going digital and conducting push button warfare. Diddling with art and going to seed is more satisfying for me now. I wrote about this history at least 8 times in the past here. I am surprised Stormy Steve and silly gilly took a warped notice this time around. I continue to think outside the box while steve guards his musty status quo. Think for yourself and trust your gut if it is the right thing to do. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 11:51 AM (#4158924) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Your misinformation, unsupported assertions, half-digested science, obscurantism and downright exaggerations are legion here. "Stormy Steve and silly gilly" are perfectly justified in taking the things you claim with a big pinch of salt. You just need to be measured and straightforward. Doubtless many of things you say are true, but how would we know? And it's actually your doubters, who are more than capable of looking things up and checking you out, who are thinking for themselves. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 12:42 PM (#4158932) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen In fact Steve, you have just described yourself: "Your misinformation, unsupported assertions, half-digested science, obscurantism and downright exaggerations are legion here." |
|
27 Nov 22 - 12:51 PM (#4158933) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Nonsense. It's sad to see how he takes you in. Now please back off. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 12:52 PM (#4158934) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: gillymor "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."- Joseph Goebbels "I wrote about this history at least 8 times in the past here."- Donuel |
|
27 Nov 22 - 12:59 PM (#4158935) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Anyhow. Back to the substantive: From wiki: "There is no accepted scientific evidence that precognition is a real effect, and it is widely considered to be pseudoscience.Precognition violates the principle of causality, that an effect cannot occur before its cause. Precognition has been widely believed in throughout history. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people believe it to be real; it is still widely reported and remains a topic of research and discussion within the parapsychology community." So if you believe in it, you're right up there with homeopathy, ghosts, seances, exorcisms, visions, miracles and belief in God. No-one can tell you that you're wrong, of course. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 01:44 PM (#4158938) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Why am I strongly reminded of Trumpty-Dumpty? Tactics: State his opinions with no facts or relevant data to back them up. Start flinging around personal insults and ridicule at anyone who doesn't bow to his supposed superiority. Cast aspersions on the other person in the discussion especially claiming that they are not backing their opinions up with facts and/or relevant data. (Funny that!) Claim that he is being unfairly targeted. When all else fails, start flinging insults around concerning irrelevant information e.g. the country the other person lives in. Never admit to personal mistakes. Never apologise. Never empathise. Keep up the belligerence throughout the process to try to make the opponent back away from the discussion. A win is achieved (in Trumpty-Dumpty's mind) if the discussion is shut down because of that belligerence. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 01:46 PM (#4158939) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I haven't changed my story in 20 years here although I have gone into more detail in the past than today. I know calling me a liar serves some purpose for Steve. I am happy with my truth. I do not see myself as a hero in my own story. I do not have any blood sport in my life and for that I am proud. In America that is an accomplishment with all our wars. That doesn't make me better than a soldier with fewer choices. but it might be luck. But that's all of topic. Precognition has affected my decision making all my life but as Maloc said that may just be how consciousness looks from the inside. I did finally decide to marry a left brain dominant woman but with plenty of precognition episodes, like the day she had a dream of a train crash and did not go to work that day - her train did crash in Boston that day. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 02:27 PM (#4158943) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen A family story I have been told is that my Great Grandfather and his brother did not go to work in the Welsh Senghenydd coal mine - which would be a very difficult decision to make back in 1913 when workers had very few rights - and that was the day of the major colliery disaster. If they had gone to work in the mine that day, they both would have probably died or been severely injured. I guess precognitive skills run in my family. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 03:28 PM (#4158945) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Only survivors can tell such stories but having precog would be an evolutionary advantage. Having such a sense would be like 'inherited luck'. I wrote a story about my family's inherited luck. Researching other lucky figures in history and their families would be an interesting if not spooky project. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 03:35 PM (#4158947) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen There may be stories from family or friends of people who had a bad feeling but went ahead regardless and then suffered the consequences. I vaguely remember reading about someone who was booked to travel on the Titanic but the feeling was so strong that s/he did not go. I don't have any more information so it would be difficult to research. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 03:46 PM (#4158950) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw You're a bit of a desperado, aren't you, Helen? And still clinging to precognition*, in spite of what you've been reliably informed! Good for you. *(Spellchecker rendered that as "pre-ignition." Maybe it knows something I don't...) |
|
27 Nov 22 - 04:03 PM (#4158951) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "I did finally decide to marry a left brain dominant woman..." You decided? I sincerely hope it was mutual... "...but with plenty of precognition episodes, like the day she had a dream of a train crash and did not go to work that day - her train did crash in Boston that day." Coincidence. It happens a lot. Coincidence is well-documented, overwhelmingly more likely and is logically sound. Your "explanation" is pseudoscience and is up there with fairies at the bottom of the garden. Still, you purport to be a scientist. Please yourself. By the way, if I ever told my boss that I didn't come to work yesterday because I had a dream, I'd lose a day's pay. Do tell us more. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 06:00 PM (#4158958) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw As for the Titanic, I suggest a perusal of https://www.themanwhosentthesos.com/post/2017/05/01/premonitions-paranormal-and-psychic-phenomena-involving-the-titanic Certainly, a good few people felt queasy about getting on a brand-new ship that had rather cockily been declared to be "practically unsinkable." Let's see: let's suppose (theoretically) that EasyJet commissioned a brand-new untested plane that had been lauded as "uncrashable." Would that claim make you more or less comfortable about getting on it? I know what I'd think... You can always find someone or other who would make wacky claims about what they foresaw in their dreams or other premonitions. The fact is that, for every one of these charlatans, there are thousands who did not have these feelings of foreboding about the future incident in question. The rock-solid conclusion, from a scientific and statistical point of view, is that the few deadly dreams out of many thousands of non-dreams are simple coincidence. Of course, if you prefer to see something rather sinister in what a charlatan has told you, that's fine. But let's not try to dignify that feeling by rationalising it. A bit like Goebbels with his lie repeated often enough, as gilly said, you can't make the irrational into rational by parroting out unsupported and unsupportable claims, no matter how many times or how often you promote them. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 06:08 PM (#4158960) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen The first few lines of a random Wiki article isn't scientific evidence. Sorry to burst your bubble. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 06:19 PM (#4158962) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'm afraid that a million claims of precognition aren't scientific evidence either, and never can be. Of course, you're fully entitled to your imaginative and rather sinister-sounding viewpoint, but some of us prefer to remain grounded in the magic of reality (to quote Richard Dawkins). By the way, I'm not trying to provide evidence at all, so my bubble isn't a bubble. I'm simply trying to prise at least some kind of evidence out of precog claimants such as you and Donuel. I'm not holding my breath. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 06:32 PM (#4158965) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen You are proving my point very well. You are not interested in evidence or an evidence based rational discussion. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 07:31 PM (#4158971) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Future directions in precognition research: more research can bridge the gap between skeptics and proponents We should have seen this coming, article by D. Samuel Schwarzkopf Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events |
|
27 Nov 22 - 07:39 PM (#4158973) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen My precognitive abilities strongly suggest that Steve won't bother to read the scientific articles. Or maybe I'm just basing that on past history from the Steve Shaw/Mudcat universe. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 07:48 PM (#4158974) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Whatever. You'll never know, will you? :-) Moving on... |
|
27 Nov 22 - 07:52 PM (#4158975) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen I'll know if you don't and you still post the same, hackneyed, repetitious phrases in this thread. |
|
27 Nov 22 - 08:31 PM (#4158978) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Now don't go upsetting yourself, Helen. You'll be giving yourself an ulcer at this rate. I've suggested moving on. In the last hour I've watched a wonderful performance of Rhapsody In Blue on the telly that I hadn't even known was on, ordered all my Christmas wine from Sainsburys (25% off six, all from Italy and none of that Aussie Ribena nonsense) and reset my barograph. I had to look up the music and the wine for myself and no weird spirit of a precognatory persuasion told me about them in advance. What a bummer. And aren't all those bare bums on Bondi beach wonderful? Why, I spotted one or two that were almost as pert as mine! Happy days! |
|
28 Nov 22 - 06:38 AM (#4159000) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Get back to your kitchen and wine. Your little hissey fit is over. When it comes to feelings, you are not the authority we are looking for. good catch Helen, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706048/ BULLS EYE in more ways than one. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 07:15 AM (#4159001) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Dream on (oops...what've I just said...) |
|
28 Nov 22 - 07:53 AM (#4159005) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Unfortunately, I've been through those three links now. The first two lead to conclusions that made no progress towards an answer: both sympathetic but both head-scratching. The third is a highly statistical meta-analysis of a large number of experiments, most of which were attempts to trump mere observational claims of the kind we've heard in this thread via forced-choice methodology. The analysts express too many caveats to list here, but, among them, there are doubts regarding sample size and selective reporting of data (the kind of "bad science" pointed to by the estimable Ben Goldacre). Even attempts to exactly replicate methodology are subject to potential confounding factors, and in some cases exact replication wasn't achieved at all (there was a bit of an obsession with erotic stimuli...). The analysts are honest enough to not allow us to be blinded by statistics (see page 42 onward). It's noted that the bulk of scepticism comes from real real scientists as opposed to workers in the humanities. Why would that surprise me... All in all, the links hardly further the cause of precog at all. Sorry, guys! Not even close and definitely no cigar. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 08:18 AM (#4159009) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Thats not the bulls eye I speak of. I will give you the last word. In fact I will give you TWO. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 09:35 AM (#4159017) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I don't read links from you that are uncommented on, as I've told you before. Tell us more. If you can, in plain speak, please. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 10:48 AM (#4159025) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel nope |
|
28 Nov 22 - 11:25 AM (#4159031) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D "Intuition" is not precognition and anecdotes are not data.| We remember events that DID happen that we seemed to have foreknowledge of, but sweep under the rug ones that didn't happen. I have had vivid, scary dreams...but have seen no evidence of them being more than neural patterns rearranging memories. I have never had anything resembling an instance of precognition. (Of course, I've been told I just wasn't 'wired right'...just like my horoscope says I'm the sort who doesn't trust horoscopes... and my Myers-Briggs test says I'm the sort who doesn't like taking such tests..INTP, I think.) All the logic I have studied suggests that the various trust in such things are mostly examples of "affirming the consequent" https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent |
|
28 Nov 22 - 11:36 AM (#4159035) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well done, Bill. I wish we could all stay as grounded. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 11:44 AM (#4159038) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D "Ad Hoc Rescue Very often we desperately want to be right and hold on to certain beliefs, despite any evidence presented to the contrary. As a result, we begin to make up excuses as to why our belief could still be true, and is still true, despite the fact that we have no real evidence for what we are making up." and many others.. could YOUR reasoning be listed here. It's nothing to be ashamed of. We all are tempted to assert or accept ideas that fail certain tests. What is unfortunate is that so few care what 'logic' says. AS an old woman was quoted as saying by Nietzsche.."Of course it was a just war! My son died in it!" (as a side note.. some things we accept or believe may in fact be true, but not for the reasons we claim) |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:07 PM (#4159044) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Steve.. I spent many hours in philosophy classes absorbing 'grounding'... I never used all that professionally, and am rusty on the details... but the basic attitudes stayed with me. (Just as many are vague about the various things in the bible.. *grin*.. but still use it as a guide.) |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:11 PM (#4159046) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie A rather humbling fact: I have sometimes asked myself whether I foresaw an event and then have to acknowledge that since I don't *know* what is coming down the pike *today*, the chances that I foresaw it in previous days are nil. Fears, yes. Hopes, yes. Logical interpretations, yes. But *knowing*? No. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:18 PM (#4159051) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Exactly, Bill, responding to your 11.44 post. It's never possible to be CERTAIN that there's no God/ghosts/fairies/precognition, etc., and always best to leave just a tiny chink of the mind open. Equally, it's not wicked to demand evidence (even if you end up sounding like Richard Dawkins or Mr Spock). Equally again, it's not wicked to insist that evidence really IS evidence, not simply uncorroborated claims, visions, hearsay, witness, resort to old fables (or the Bible) or even to "experiments" carried out in highly artificial circumstances which are fatally subject to confounding factors. Without proper evidence, the correct reaction to these claims is a faintly interested (or not) shrug of the shoulders. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:36 PM (#4159054) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw By the way, Bill, what a great website that is. It shall be a resort of mine forever! |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:44 PM (#4159057) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Geoff Wallis Steve wrote 'Equally again, it's not wicked to insist that evidence really IS evidence, not simply uncorroborated claims ...' Here's a little article that considers presentiment research and its results in the context of scientific method - well worth reading. 'We Should Have Seen This Coming' by D. Samuel Schwartzopf. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00332/full |
|
28 Nov 22 - 12:53 PM (#4159065) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Actually, that was the second of Helen's three links, Geoff. The basic conclusion from it is that if you ignore it you are simply waving away real science. Sadly for Helen, it does absolutely nothing to further the cause of precognition. I wonder whether she saw that coming... |
|
28 Nov 22 - 01:05 PM (#4159070) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Geoff Wallis Whoops, apologies to all. Could a mod please remove my message at 12:44PM, 28/11/2022? |
|
28 Nov 22 - 01:40 PM (#4159072) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen From the third article I suggested: "As is widely known, the conceptual model of physical reality changed dramatically for physicists during the 20th Century, when quantum theory predicted and experiments confirmed the existence of several phenomena that are themselves incompatible with our everyday Newtonian conception of physical reality. Some psi researchers see sufficiently compelling parallels between certain quantum phenomena (e.g., quantum entanglement) and characteristics of psi to warrant considering them as potential mechanisms for psi phenomena (e.g., Broderick, 2007; Radin, 2006). Moreover, specific mechanisms have been proposed that seek to explain psi effects with theories more testable and falsifiable than simple metaphor (e.g., Bierman, 2010; Maier & Buechner, 2015; Walach et al., 2014). A recent collection of these theories is presented in May & Marwaha (2015)." My observation is that there are some people who have precognitive skills, some acknowledge them and some try to ignore them, some try to build on the skill, especially of recognising a precognitive event and acting on it if appropriate. The important point is that NOT EVERYONE has the skill. If a person who does not have the skill tries to ridicule people who do have the skill, mainly as a deterrent for those people to speak about topics that person does not want to acknowledge, then that is not a valid response. We are all different, with different skills. Telling other people what to think or believe is not a valid response. You can tell people what YOU think or believe, but it is more ethical and courteous to make your statements and allow other people to make their own evaluations and statements about what they think or believe. Respect for others' statements is paramount. Not ridicule, not insults, not forcing people to think or believe what you believe regardless of their own thoughts and beliefs. Steve has stated what he garnered from reading those articles. Fine. Now let other people make their own judgements and statements. Being a sceptic, and I mean a proponent of healthy scepticism, is not having a totally closed mind, refusing point-blank to consider any evidence or facts which may change that closed-mind position. Being a healthy sceptic involves starting from the viewpoint of not being gullible, but also being open to new evidence and being open to shifting opinions and beliefs if the evidence supports that. Steve, you have made your point ad nauseum in this discussion, but unless you allow others to make their points and say what they think or believe, you are just obstructing the discussion. We now know how YOU have interpreted those articles, now let other people read them and interpret them for themselves. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 02:21 PM (#4159076) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Again, from the third article. From the Results and Discussion section: "The first question addressed by the meta-analysis is whether the database provides overall evidence for the anomalous anticipation of random future events. As shown in the first and second rows of Table 1, the answer is yes..." .... "The second question is whether independent investigators can successfully replicate Bem’s original experiments. As shown in the third and fourth rows of Table 1, the answer is again yes..." ... "Nevertheless, we still believe that it is the fast/slow variable itself that is an important determinant of the lower success rate of the slow-thinking experiments. In particular, we suspect that fast-thinking protocols are more likely to produce evidence for psi because they prevent conscious cognitive strategies from interfering with the automatic, unconscious, and implicit nature of psi functioning ( Carpenter, 2012). This parallels the finding in conventional psychology that mere exposure effects are most likely to occur when the exposures are subliminal or incidental because the participant is not aware of them and, hence, is not prompted to counter their attitude-inducing effects ( Bornstein, 1989)." .... From the General Discussion section: [Regarding scepticism] "One sobering statistic from the survey was that 34% of psychologists in the sample asserted psi to be impossible, more than twice the percentage of all other respondents (16%). Critics of Bayesian analyses frequently point out the reductio ad absurdum case of the extreme skeptic who declares psi or any other testable phenomenon to be impossible. The Bayesian formula implies that for such a person, no finite amount of data can raise the posterior probability in favor of the experimental hypothesis above 0, thereby conferring illusory legitimacy on the most anti-scientific stance. " ..... "Perhaps the most reasonable and frequently cited argument for being skeptical about psi is that there is no explanatory theory or proposed mechanism for psi phenomena that is compatible with current physical and biological principles. Indeed, this limitation is implied by the very description of psi as “anomalous,” and it provides an arguably legitimate rationale for imposing the requirement that the evidence for psi be “extraordinary.” "We would argue, however, that this is still not a legitimate rationale for rejecting proffered evidence a priori. Historically, the discovery and scientific exploration of most phenomena have preceded explanatory theories, often by decades (e.g., the analgesic effect of aspirin; the anti-depressant effect of electroconvulsive therapy) or even centuries (e.g., electricity and magnetism, explored in ancient Greece as early as 600 BC, remained without theoretical explanation until the Nineteenth Century). The incompatibility of psi with our current conceptual model of physical reality may say less about psi than about the conceptual model of physical reality that most non-physicists, including psychologists, still take for granted—but which physicists no longer do. "As is widely known, the conceptual model of physical reality changed dramatically for physicists during the 20th Century, when quantum theory predicted and experiments confirmed the existence of several phenomena that are themselves incompatible with our everyday Newtonian conception of physical reality. Some psi researchers see sufficiently compelling parallels between certain quantum phenomena (e.g., quantum entanglement) and characteristics of psi to warrant considering them as potential mechanisms for psi phenomena (e.g., Broderick, 2007; Radin, 2006). Moreover, specific mechanisms have been proposed that seek to explain psi effects with theories more testable and falsifiable than simple metaphor (e.g., Bierman, 2010; Maier & Buechner, 2015; Walach et al., 2014). A recent collection of these theories is presented in May & Marwaha (2015)." |
|
28 Nov 22 - 03:04 PM (#4159080) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: robomatic When you don't have evidence, it becomes a temptation to take a legalistic approach. "Would you believe my client is innocent if I could produce proof? You haven't actually produced even evidence but you have brought it into the discussion by producing an implication out of thin air (no air, actually). Meanwhile, an argument can be started over just what IS evidence. Reminds me of the brilliant scene from Monty Python |
|
28 Nov 22 - 03:54 PM (#4159084) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well I haven't obstructed anyone from saying whatever they like, so that's a ridiculous accusation. Try to stick to the thread, why don't you. Your reading of the third piece, as you report it to us, is highly selective. Explanations of aspirin or electromagnetism, etc., came after the rock-solid fact that these were well-known and repeatedly observable physical phenomena. I could have sat down and shown you a magnet working long before its action could be explained, and if you didn't believe me I could show you - show you before your very eyes - again and again. Trying to equate that with not yet knowing the explanation of a phenomenon that can't even be demonstrated to occur is simply scientific mischief. "My observation is that there are some people who have precognitive skills, some acknowledge them and some try to ignore them, some try to build on the skill, especially of recognising a precognitive event and acting on it if appropriate. The important point is that NOT EVERYONE has the skill. If a person who does not have the skill tries to ridicule people who do have the skill, mainly as a deterrent for those people to speak about topics that person does not want to acknowledge, then that is not a valid response. We are all different, with different skills." So much expressed certainty here. You excoriate people, who have science solidly on their side as it happens, who you appear to want to be jealous because they don't have the "skill." The bald fact is that you can't demonstrate that anyone at all has the "skill." Sure, science can move on. But it's always the best we've got for now. There no room for criticism of sceptics who won't accommodate what are mere unsupported claims that are beyond science. I'm a bit like that with God too. We can all put our views, and the fact that we're reading this thread at least means that we're listening. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 04:35 PM (#4159090) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I think of the great English scientists down through history and Newton is in the top 3 imo. Still it took A German to refine his equations of gravity. Today Penrose is in the top 3. Penrose diagrams explain mysteries yet can not be proven at this time because of the nature of black holes greedily guarding its facts. This does not mean that Penrose is wrong like Newton or that he is basically right. There is sometimes a 21st CENTURY quantum third choice. There is more to the scientific method than a 20th century mitigation of TWO opposing views. Of course the choice to remain grounded only in the past is a personal choice one is free to make. It takes a special brand of courage to take the first step into the potential unknown than to defend a musty status quo. Ask Albert. Once again imo. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 04:38 PM (#4159093) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen You make a lot of assumptions, Steve. Unsupported, in some cases. You seem to think that the more you say something and the more aggressively you say it, the more likely that it will be accepted as truth. I quoted from a scientific article. I didn't selectively quote from it, I picked the bits which explained the outcomes of the meta-analysis of multiple scientific studies without bogging this thread down with statistical data analysis which people may or may not understand. I also provided a link to the article for people to read all of it or some of it, if they choose so they don't have to take my word for the outcomes proposed by the scientists who analysed those studies. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 04:40 PM (#4159094) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw But take those steps using science. Not fantasy, guesswork or wild imagination. Both Einstein and Newton were working with a demonstrable phenomenon. You are not. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 04:53 PM (#4159096) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw You picked the bits that you felt supported your case. It's called confirmation bias. I pointed to a whole bunch of pages that started after the statistical jungle. I'd also add that statistics can work very well on flawed data, but what they can't do is point to the experimental flaws. We can all seek out the stuff that helps our case and sideline the rest. In fact, read it again and you'll find lots of references to just that suspicion in the various experiments studied. You'll also read about the highly artificial experimental setups and the considerable scope for confounding factors. And that was in the best of the three. You gave us three interesting links that, quite frankly, did little to support precognition as an accepted phenomenon. Hardly surprising. We can all want something to be true, but, alas, the world doesn't work that way. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 04:59 PM (#4159099) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Which part of meta-analysis do you not understand? They are the scientists, not me. You appear to be very emotionally invested in proving your beliefs, to the point that your emotions are appear to be interfering with rational analysis. I am not stressing about this. I am not emotionally invested in a certain, previously decided outcome. I am interested in learning about the science. I have an open mind. I am not gullible, or prone to cling to beliefs even in the face of scientific evidence. Healthy scepticism is good. Clinging to beliefs in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary is unhealthy. You have stated what you believe or think to be true. Please allow the discussion to occur without emotion clouding the atmosphere of this thread. Please also allow others to state their thoughts in the discussion without resorting to personal attacks. It's science. It's not belief. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:02 PM (#4159101) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel "Twinkle twinkle little star how I wonder what you are" In Mozart's day, not that long ago, a star was a wonder. Thermonuclear fusion was not even a concept yet. Hail to the age of wonder when what will be known is still around the corner. To broach certain subjects was a death penalty crime in the church. Who do you think you are, Torquamata? |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:06 PM (#4159102) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Statistics prove that half the world is below average intelligence... |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:15 PM (#4159103) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Twinkle Twinkle was made into a little set of piano variations by Mozart. Stars in Mozart's time were, as now, a rock-solid (metaphorically speaking) physical phenomenon. But you are fallaciously equating that to a claim that isn't even accepted as a scientific phenomenon at all. As I said, that's just scientific mischief. In the scientific process, in the philosophy of science, the burden of proof lies entirely with the claimant. Bring it on! Well, Helen, there no emotion in my posts but there's plenty of blustery outrage in yours, not to speak of what increasingly looks like frustrated abuse. I'm not bothered. By the way, I know very well what meta-studies are, thanks. I've engaged quite a lot now with the one you presented to us, which doesn't really support your case and which you've been tempted to cherrypick. So let's have that "scientific evidence" you think you've got... |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:16 PM (#4159104) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Whoa, Dave. First, define "average intelligence...". ;-) |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:17 PM (#4159105) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel How dare my 75 percentile contradict a narcissist's 145% Like Fractals simplicity has wisdom. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:31 PM (#4159106) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Thermonuclear fusion was discovered in the 1930's and that it powered stars. now you are just ranting from pseudo indignation. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:39 PM (#4159108) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Helen.. you said about that article: "My observation is that there are some people who have precognitive skills, some acknowledge them and some try to ignore them, etc. Now, that article is pretty long and tediously technical, but as far as I can tell from it, the author merely suggests the scientific version of 'keeping an open mind and looking for evidence'... which is always in order. At one point it says "Statistical inference, regardless of whatever form it takes, only assigns probabilities. It cannot ever prove or disprove a theory. In fact, unlike mathematical theorems, scientific theories are never proven. They can only be supported by evidence and must always be subjected to scientific skepticism." Then later it says: "Rather than predicting future events, what such pre-stimulus physiological activity may actually reflect is that the brain can make predictions of probable events." Thus, I am not sure whether you are suggesting that you tend to accept **real** precognition...or that you agree merely that some people are better than most at making accurate predictions based on reasoning about various data.... which is obviously true. What I'm really asking is whether you use "precognition" in the umm... metaphysical sense. There is often a bit of equivocation when people debate a concept without agreeing on exactly what they are referring to. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 05:58 PM (#4159112) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "At one point it says "Statistical inference, regardless of whatever form it takes, only assigns probabilities. It cannot ever prove or disprove a theory." That's right. And, as I said in different words, statistics aren't intelligent. Applying statistical analysis to flawed data might still give you the flawed answer you were yearning for. The stats can't tell you what was wrong with your experimental method and can't deal with what was conveniently left out of the numbers. The meta-analysis does deal with these caveats. Science without scepticism isn't science. The degree of scepticism depends on the flimsiness or otherwise of the proposal. This one, unfortunately, is very flimsy on every level. That may change in the future, of course. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 06:34 PM (#4159114) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen No, to clarify BillD, I wasn't commenting about that article. It was, as I said, MY observation. All comments from that point and below in that post were my thoughts. "My observation is that there are some people who have precognitive skills, some acknowledge them and some try to ignore them..." |
|
28 Nov 22 - 06:38 PM (#4159115) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I notice some short-term flexibility in awareness of future events. In the long run, I notice that future global awareness strengthens the effect. I do not think the word metaphysical would best express this branch of global consciousness if it does exist as a path of communication. If you believe consciousness is fundamental it is a small jump to accept some rare aspects of consciousness. No one is claiming this is settled science. We are still learning about the quantum fractal nature of consciousness on the small scale. On the large scale the internet has had the largest effect imo. These questions also arise in discussions about AI. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 06:51 PM (#4159116) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Ah.. clarification noted. This makes me wonder whether 'observation' is the same as 'conclusion', 'belief' and/or 'opinion'. There are many things about people and their assertions to 'observe', but concluding that, to me, resembles using anecdotes as data, similar to reports about 'ghosts'...etc. Are these observations from people you know, or reading about them? I realize you are not directly asserting them as proof, but.... "shrug' |
|
28 Nov 22 - 06:55 PM (#4159117) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Consciousness is what we can know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness has intrigued and baffled philosophers. To begin, we must define and describe consciousness. What to include in a complete definition and description of consciousness? podcast |
|
28 Nov 22 - 07:19 PM (#4159118) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw As I said, the authors of the meta-analysis are gently (yet decidedly) sceptical, and a good read from page 42 to where the hundreds of references begin is well worth doing. It's only a few pages and it saves you from battling through all the statistics (though feel free!) As I don't want Bill to point to my committing a logical fallacy ;-) I'll refrain from mentioning specific authorities' view of precognition outlined in those pages. Just to say that it seems that the most sceptical group were the well over a thousand psychologists who were questioned. Just sayin'! By the way, "belief" implies taking on board a notion despite little or no evidence. Rejecting someone's belief (not necessarily out of hand - that's where the scepticism comes in) on the grounds of little or no evidence is not in itself belief. There is a distinction, not yet noted by at least one person here... |
|
28 Nov 22 - 08:02 PM (#4159119) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Follow up to my fractal quantum mind idea quantum fractal consciousness is fundamental in all things |
|
28 Nov 22 - 08:17 PM (#4159120) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I should have said that belief means taking on board a notion without regard to the essential nature of evidence. You can believe something that is actually true though you didn't look for or were unaware of supporting evidence (which may exist). Complicated, innit! The bottom line is that belief doesn't sit easily with science (rejection or scepticism may be your lot) and it may lead to a challenge. I think I'm ducking... |
|
28 Nov 22 - 08:31 PM (#4159122) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Pan-psychism (Consciousness is fundamental in all things) is winning the day among philosophers, physicists, and neuro psychologists today. The polyfractal brain The idea is that this evolutionary advantage is then incorporated into the nervous systems of multi-cellular organisms, in which parallel organization, chaotic excitability and the capacity for coherence provide for the expansion of the existing cellular properties into global neurodynamics. The excitable cell, rather than neural net architecture alone, so it becomes pivotal in the evolution of the conscious brain. The conscious mind we think of as I is only a tiny fraction compared to the subjective mind. The brain actually producea a miniscule flash of light along with electro magnetic pathways, chemical pathways and quantum sized tubules that undergo protien changes. Even one exitable cell has a voice. What we call the conscious mind is more or less the CEO of the mind. That my mind seems extra subjective may be due to damage or inherited characteristics. I don't know and it doesn't matter to me. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 08:43 PM (#4159123) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Its getting late. I wrote the thoughts instead of translating the thoughts into a narrative. But the idea of a multi-poly-fractal-quantum mind does make for a larger than life consciousness. |
|
28 Nov 22 - 10:34 PM (#4159128) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen An observation is something that you have learned by seeing or watching something and thinking about it. From: Observation definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary |
|
29 Nov 22 - 04:38 AM (#4159135) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Observational evidence has always been important in science. After all, it's all that cavemen and women had. However, in modern times the gold standard is controlled experimentation. In medicine, randomised controlled trials. Observational science is valid but is fraught with issues such as observational bias and significant danger of confounding. From the dawn of humanity right up to three or four hundred years ago, observation led us to conclude that the sun went round the Earth, that the Earth was centre of the universe. I had a dream last night that I lit the fire in my wood stove but it went out again. Suppose it goes out when I try to light it this coming evening. Wow, precognition! I ignore the fact that, something like once a month, I fail to get the fire going at the first attempt. I'd far sooner claim that my dream came true rather than investigating what I occasionally get wrong when stacking the fire. But only if I believe in precognition in the first place... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 05:09 AM (#4159140) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stanron Oh Steve! With the best will in the world how can anyone possibly observe precognition? It's not actually precognition until after the event. You, or someone else, has the bad dream or sense of foreboding, how do you observe that?, later the event happens or doesn't, Well the event may be observed but how many of the observers would be aware of the premonition? Science is wonderful but it does have limitations. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 05:16 AM (#4159141) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well you can report the whole train of events once it's over. "I had this dream...it came true next day/week...". That'll do for an observation. The science content is another matter... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 05:18 AM (#4159142) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen OFFS |
|
29 Nov 22 - 06:10 AM (#4159147) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Backwoodsman Early in the thread, I had a precognition that, due to individuals’ belief in their own infallibility and their constant naysaying the opinions of others, it would perform the Oozelum Bird’s trick of going round and round in ever-decreasing circles until it finally flies up its own rectum. I believe that we are observing the latter stages of the trick right now, and that I am observing the verification of my precognition…. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 06:12 AM (#4159149) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Oh, For Fake Science? :-) |
|
29 Nov 22 - 06:24 AM (#4159151) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Read the thread properly, John. Despite the bouts of distemper, no-one has actually claimed infallibility. It's basically a disjunction of imagination/speculative claims and sound science (define...). There's room for both unless you're Mr Spock. The best bit was the déjà vu department. If we revisit it, would that be a déjà vu? |
|
29 Nov 22 - 07:07 AM (#4159155) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I find the broader question of consciousness more fascinating while precognition is merely a debatable minor aspect. Planes will crash, volcanos will erupt, pandemics will come and people will protest. Getting a heads up in a consciousness of unimaginable variability is virtually certain to happen. Time and evolution have encoded bears to know it is now time to begin hibernation. Billions of years led to this bear strategy. Our consciousness is an amalgam of many life form strategies. It is normal to not even know you have certain abilities that are beyond your conscious awareness. Get a handle on the status of consciousness with this quick audible interview of the leading researchers here: great minds on the subject of how we think |
|
29 Nov 22 - 08:12 AM (#4159162) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "It is normal to not even know you have certain abilities that are beyond your conscious awareness." Hmm. Possibly, but that is not an argument that promotes the cause of proposed abilities to predict specific events via dreams or weird feelings. Science will move on but jumping the gun is too risky for words. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 09:04 AM (#4159164) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D https://www.acronymfinder.com/Slang/OFFS.html It seems that we have asked a bit too many pointed questions.. "An observation is something that you have learned by seeing or watching something and thinking about it. From: Observation definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary I will say only that the dictionary definition doesn't help when one is trying to understand the process of moving from observation to opinion. Two people can read the exact same articles, listen to the same anecdotes, and come to different conclusions. (12 paragraphs on the concept of causality omitted for your pleasure) I am a science fiction fan, and I LOVE the idea of telepathy. Dozens of creative stories exist about it, and I know people who...etc... I also am fascinated by stories of human levitation.. and I met a man a few years ago who casually asserted that he had done it, but when I asked for a demo.."Oh, this isn't the time or place." There was a movie called "Interstellar" which painted a fascinating look at spatio-temporal distortion... (guy travels thru wormhole and learns about 'beings' who are now something like pure thought... then comes back to tell his daughter in the past how to save civilization.) I 'observed' that they were testing my credulity... but entertainingly. Our departed pal Amos **believed** something similar. and so it goes.. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 09:40 AM (#4159173) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I could give you an argument as to whether we should strictly regard "OFFS" as an acronym, Bill, but you know me - I hate squabbles... ;-) |
|
29 Nov 22 - 10:26 AM (#4159181) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Nigel Parsons To quote Arthur C Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" And, as a corollary, any sufficiently codified form of magic is indistinguishable from science. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 10:28 AM (#4159182) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Oh, I do! You're a paragon of calm.. I didn't recognize it as an acronym.. but Google..... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 11:06 AM (#4159185) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk Re Clarke's Law: Benford's Corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." .... but "magic" in this context has the specific meaning of "something which couldn't have been explained to someone from a previous era", eg television, or being able to turn on a light without having to say "Fiat Lux". I can't recommend highly enough The Science of Discworld, which is the interleaving of a thundering good Terry Pratchett tale with Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen's joyful romp through the big science of Roundworld (meaning us). I have a bookmark in my copy permanently set halfway through Chapter Four ("Science and Magic") for quick reference, in which --- no, I'll leave that for you to discover. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 11:18 AM (#4159186) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Oi, Shaw! Our stove will not light this evening... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 11:46 AM (#4159193) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Neither will mine! No bloody wind... But I knew that from my dream. I think I'm good at preprognosticating. But I only think it... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 11:57 AM (#4159195) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Preventing discussion or anal-ysis of any topic which is contrary to Steve's world view is one of the prime tactics in his arse-nal. I have observed this over many years on Mudcat and I (and others) have been on the receiving end of many of his tactics to prevent me from stating my case in a wide range of discussions. Other tactics include belligerence, aggression, ridicule, personal insults, deflection, distraction, counter claims against the other people in the discussion, claiming that the others are emotionally responding even when the comments made are rational and focused on the topic, drawing others in to his side to create division, and another recurring tactic that I have noticed over the years is misogyny. I took direct quotes from the meta-analysis article. I did not reinterpret what the scientists stated. If you haven't read the article Feeling the future : A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events then I suggest you read it and make your own decisions about the claims made by the scientists. I also suggest that you do not simply take Steve Shaw's interpretations of that article as gospel truth. Humans do not know everything about the world and how it works, and that includes how humans work. Keep an open mind. A closed mind will only see what it wants to see. And Backwoodsman, I had the same precognition as you. I must have read your mind. LOL And MaJoC, thanks for the Pratchett reference. :-) I'll check it out. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 12:34 PM (#4159198) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen MaJoC, I have just ordered the Pratchett book to add to our extensive collection of his fiction books. I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks again for the recommendation. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 12:34 PM (#4159199) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome And none of that is a belligerent, aggressive, distracting, personal attack I suppose? :-/ |
|
29 Nov 22 - 12:37 PM (#4159201) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Ignore her. She's totally lost it. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 12:42 PM (#4159202) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen No it's a rational, factual observation of Steve Shaw's contributions to Mudcat over the years. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 12:55 PM (#4159204) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog Fortean Times magazine FT245 December issue has a two page article by Taras Young called Dreaming of the Queen. He searched twitter for the year prior to 8th Sept, searching for how many people had self reported dreaming about the Queen's death. In all he found 345 reports but none predicted the date. He did note spikes in the number of reports whenever there was news about the Queen's health. He also says that immediately following news of her death, 9 people claimed to have dreamt about it that day, and 22 more said they had done so in the preceeding week. Those reports were excluded from his survey. He choose twitter as posts could not be amended. I think that it was just English language posts that he searched. It was an interesting read. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 01:03 PM (#4159206) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "...rational..." :-) :-) :-) |
|
29 Nov 22 - 01:05 PM (#4159207) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw The Queen was 96 and had been known to be in ill-health for ages. Nothing to see there then! :-) |
|
29 Nov 22 - 01:09 PM (#4159208) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Rain Dog, that's an interesting study, but we all knew how frail the Queen was in the year or so prior to her death. Predicting that she would pass away was not an extraordinary idea, when you also take into account her age and the stresses of recent years, including the death of her husband Prince Philip during a COVID lockdown. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 01:42 PM (#4159211) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw One day last week I walked towards a mirror and, even before I got there, I simply KNEW that it was me who I'd see. I think I have prerecognition... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 02:36 PM (#4159213) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog He was checking the posts to see if anyone had posted to say they had dreamt the Queen would die on the 8th Sept. He noted increased posts after reports of ill health. There was no evidence of anyone predicting the death on the 8th. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 02:38 PM (#4159214) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome So you really don't see it as a belligerent, aggressive, distracting, personal attack? I should have seen that coming... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 02:53 PM (#4159215) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Are you trying to say that you've got precognitivo-predictivitional skills, Dave? |
|
29 Nov 22 - 03:30 PM (#4159219) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I have predictive text and that usually guts in wranglers |
|
29 Nov 22 - 05:12 PM (#4159226) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'm getting Primitivo-Negroamaro tomorrow but only I know it so far. I guess that means I've got early vivinocognisance. I'd call that a gift, but I think I'll have to pay for it... |
|
29 Nov 22 - 06:07 PM (#4159234) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Helen, Researching consciousness is hard. All Steven is saying is that if it can't be measured, it does not exist. If you feel and are conscious of the warmth of a fire your mind's awareness is a given. To deny it is folly. But there are more folks like him that see consciousness as an illusion. Helen says it can be measured and we are on the right path in doing so. Those that look in the research space that is less occupied have a better chance than the 90% crowd that are the materialists that see the brain's wetware and evolution as an emergent consciousness. The road less traveled used to be that consciousness is fundamental in all things but it is gaining favor across the board lately. Perhaps its the flavor of the day but inroads are being made. |
|
29 Nov 22 - 06:33 PM (#4159239) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw What are you talking about? And who's Steven? Yours sincerely Stephen x |
|
30 Nov 22 - 12:38 AM (#4159259) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie "One day last week I walked towards a mirror and, even before I got there, I simply KNEW that it was me who I'd see." Steve Shaw That is not always true. My dad, who died at age 93 recounted his experience not long before he died. He said he was going down the sidewalk (Pavement, to you) when he saw an old man limping toward him. He thought the man looked familiar and was preparing to greet him. Then he recognized himself. lol Apropo of nothing. (Incidentally, my experience with you doesn't jibe with that of Helen. I have always found you to be interested in hypothesis, analysis and observation, with a strong bent toward the rational and a distaste for the unsupported. Take a bow.) |
|
30 Nov 22 - 02:50 AM (#4159262) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen One of the studies mentioned in the Feeling the Future article is: Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality By Dean Radin I have chosen this book because Dean Radin was part of the Stargate Project which I mentioned earlier. The first paragraph of the Preface is: "One of the most surprising discoveries of modern physics is that objects aren't as separate as they may seem. When you drill down into the core of even the most solid-looking material, separateness dissolves. All that remains, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland, are relationships extending curiously throughout space and time. These connections were predicted by quantum theory and were called 'spooky action at a distance' by Albert Einstein. One of the founders of quantum theory, Erwin Schrodinger, dubbed this peculiarity entanglement, and said 'I would not call that one [in italics] but rather the [in italics] characteristic trait of quantum mechanics'." I have read this book and it provides information on some of the scientific experiments conducted in the Stargate Project and the results from those experiments. To have a worthwhile, productive discussion about the topic of precognition, it is my belief that reading at least some of the studies is important. Otherwise assumptions may be made, or extrapolations from other people's interpretations and/or spin on those studies which may not completely and accurately reflect those studies. We may all come to different conclusions from our reading but we should all be allowed to discuss our thoughts and ideas in an atmosphere of respect for other people's viewpoints. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 03:18 AM (#4159264) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Cheers, Ebbie, much appreciated. I do my best! |
|
30 Nov 22 - 04:35 AM (#4159273) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Note: the chapter in Radin's book which is specifically relevant to this thread is Chapter 10: Presentiment, starting on page 161. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 07:22 AM (#4159284) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome We were talking about old cars on another thread. A lot of them used to suffer from preignition. New ones don't seem to. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 08:03 AM (#4159285) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel It wasn't that long ago that we knew nothing about exogenous factors, epigenetics and transgenesis in DNA. We used to call non coding DNA in our genome junk dna, and there is a huge amount of it. In the future, researchers may be less and less inclined to describe any of the noncoding sequence mysteries as junk because there are so many other more precise ways of labeling them now. The field’s best way forward is to keep an open mind when assessing the eccentricities of noncoding DNA and RNA and their biological importance. People should “take a step back and realize that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure,”. I don't expect most people to realize in general I keep an eye on the future and Steven keeps an eye on the past. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 08:14 AM (#4159286) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Which has got precisely nothing to do with precognition, of course. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 08:17 AM (#4159287) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw And if you continue to call me Steven I'll start to call you Donuel Duck. Agreed? |
|
30 Nov 22 - 08:43 AM (#4159288) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel It has everything to do with the staunch deniers that have a rich history of challenging any new truth. Even Newton and Einstein had their decriers. It is living for lazy naysayers. While I am on the lookout for new explanations you take the lazy knee-jerk reaction to not even look for yourself. You even brag that you ignore. Fine, please continue to ignore what you don't understand or want to study. I often think I have impugned you to have intelligence that is simply not there Steven. To not see relationships of ideas means you are either lying or are honestly unaware. I do notice you contradict yourself often, which is not a bad thing for the right reasons but is sad if you are unaware. I advise you to forgo your automatic adolesent abuse and be more scientific if you wish to preserve quality and civility. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 10:26 AM (#4159293) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Nigel Parsons It has everything to do with the staunch deniers that have a rich history of challenging any new truth Unfortunately, some people seem to see any new fad or theory as being a 'new truth'. A fad or theory still has a lot of work to do before it can be considered a 'truth'. Beware of people who start a conversation with "It is a truth universally acknowledged" unless they are Jane Austen afficionados. |
|
30 Nov 22 - 10:50 AM (#4159296) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk I read once that someone had decoded the junk DNA, and found it to be source-code comments, including:
|
|
30 Nov 22 - 12:02 PM (#4159304) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Gee.. this thread is getting as interesting as that old one on evolution and creation. ... well, maybe not quite..... yet. ? |
|
30 Nov 22 - 02:29 PM (#4159321) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw We can make it that way, Bill! <>evil horned devil emoticon One man's "new truth" may well be another man's (aka Donuel Duck's) wild, unsupportable flight of imagination... Just think of the "new truths" that never quite made it, after all. They never did manage to turn base metal into gold, did they, Duckie? You OK with seances, tarot cards and exorcisms too? |
|
30 Nov 22 - 03:21 PM (#4159326) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Can we get back to the scientific analyses and forgo the adolescent behaviour, please? I began re-reading the Radin book yesterday, and I went to the chapter on precognition/prescience. I suspect that the study of the effect on the random number generators relating to the 9-11 event may not have come under the heading of precognition, because although the Twin Towers were attacked at a specific time the planes were hijacked prior to that and there was probably a lot of planning beforehand by the terrorists for quite a long time in advance. It does not negate the study, with very interesting statistical data, I just think it might come under the heading of telepathy rather than precognition. Chapter 10 in Radin's book is fairly brief so worth a read if you want to know the specifics of the scientific study. The link I supplied earlier is to Google books, so you can read it online. |
|
15 Dec 22 - 06:01 AM (#4159335) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome 200! |
|
15 Dec 22 - 09:30 AM (#4159354) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk OK, a serious point (stop laughing at the back there): Once when I was at school, a friend repeatedly flipped a coin*, and asked me to guess whether it was heads or tails. Twenty-three or twenty-six flips and correct guesses later, he chickened out, rather than continue the test, despite me repeatedly telling him that my next guess would still be a 50/50 bet. That made me one in eight million on the day. I attach no more than luck to this event, however striking. It's simply for me a real-life demonstration that probability is so counterintuitive that mathematicians had to develop an entire separate discipline to explain it. * For completeness, No, it wasn't double-headed. That's from a different anecdote. |
|
15 Dec 22 - 06:20 PM (#4159412) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Fake "scientific analysis" of phenomena that are no more than wild imaginings trumps, in its childishness, our feeble attempts at "adolescent behaviour" any day! To put it another way, just gimme the science, right? Real science, OK! If you're honest and you actually know what real science entails, you'll find that to be quite a big ask... |
|
16 Dec 22 - 10:22 AM (#4159467) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Skipjack K8 You might be on the money with France, Donuel |
|
20 Dec 22 - 07:09 PM (#4159811) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Dare I revisit Helen's last post? Since I had just finished typing it when Mudcat died, I copied it, assuming it would be back soon... and I hate to waste typing. Anyway, regarding 9/11 and telepathy: ***Of course there was lots of advance planning! A couple of them enrolled in flying schools here! Their instructors wondered why they were mostly interested in steering large planes. Throw all the random numbers you wish at 9/11, but no one has shown ANY evidence of telepathy giving ANYONE prior knowledge. (adolescent behavior?.. sorry, but Steve & I and a couple of others making sarcastic and/or cynical remarks in regard to pseudo-scientific theories is way beyond adolescent. It's very much a last resort when our attempts at reasonable critique is met with even more long, complex rambling articles that would take weeks to digest. I tried to comment on such conclusion(s) as I found near the end, but you only offer more Radin.) People will continue to believe and/or take seriously these ideas, and like Tarot cards and horoscopes, it's a harmless hobby when among others who agree... but in an open forum, responses will ... umm... vary. And so it goes....**** Back to.. whatever. |
|
20 Dec 22 - 08:04 PM (#4159818) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I salute you, Bill! Some of these folks speak with such conviction, certainty even, about perceived phenomena that are no more than wild imaginings (cf. belief in God...), and it's a time-honoured thing that they will find sources to give succour to their wacky notions. They claim scientific legitimacy that is totally unjustified after any close inspection of the unreal "science" they base their claims on. We adherents to real science (which is always riddled with doubts and uncertainties and which never claims "truth") are excoriated because we are accused of having closed minds - rather ironic! How do they imagine that science ever moves on if we all have closed minds! If you really believe that you, or anyone, has the ability to foretell genuinely unforetellable events, then, unless you can somehow find the real science to support you, you are in danger of being classified by the more rational among us as, er... barking mad... |
|
21 Dec 22 - 05:42 AM (#4159841) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Bill D and Steve, you have just proved my point perfectly. If you are not prepared to read the scientific studies for fear that you might find out that your world view is not correct, then you are stuck within that world view. You can't claim that the studies are inaccurate if you are not even prepared to read them in the first place. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 06:29 AM (#4159843) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I've read your "scientific" studies. The only bits that are properly scientific are the bits in which scientists throw cold water on the claims (agreed that they do it more gently and diplomatically than we do...). When we dismiss one source, then another, here you come with yet another. You have every right to believe in God/ believe in fairies/believe in precognition, etc., and your passion for and advocacy of the latter are admirable, but you don't half spoil your case when you try to legitimise it by resorting to science that ain't science. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 07:35 AM (#4159844) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk Bucket of water time: * I believe Herself tends to mumble at high speed. * Herself believes (loudly and furiously) that I'm going deaf. These positions are not inconsistent. Our doctor once told me: "You're not deaf; it's a matter of acuity. Tell the Management to speak up .... if you dare." |
|
21 Dec 22 - 07:46 AM (#4159845) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I missed the Fifa prediction by that much. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 11:02 AM (#4159856) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk Oops: ".... to speak more clearly ...." |
|
21 Dec 22 - 11:27 AM (#4159861) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Sorry, Helen, but as Steve said, we HAVE read a lot of your posts and links and, at least in my case, many others for over 60 years. I am *prepared* to read or listen to ANY clear exposition of test(s) and data that follows logical reason and scientific procedure. The problem is, people who are convinced... or almost convinced.. that paranormal abilities really do exist want to suggest that 'reports' and 'anecdotes' in sufficient quantities suffice. Yes, such anecdotes can warrant exploration, but in every case there are equally good reasons to suspect alternate causation. There are entire categories of logical flaws to help explain why it is so easy & tempting to give credence to many studies and beliefs, but takes a lot of typing to lay them out. If YOU are willing to delve into MY list of sources, try this one to begin... https://arachnoid.com/opinion/religion.html and note in the headers at the top, links to a discussion of the scientific method and other items. (Religion is simply the most common belief that pervades human concerns.) I quite understand why people seem to see various experiences and stories that help them cope with this thing called 'existence', but after 60+ years of formal & informal study, discussion and debate, I find that in certain areas, I don't NEED answers. Your mileage may vary. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 12:36 PM (#4159868) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stilly River Sage There's a flying spaghetti monster in the room with a whole lotta logical fallacies being illustrated here. The Argument from Ignorance (also, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false, or it must be true. E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their crazy theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence (also, "Whataboutism"; The Missing Link fallacy), e.g. "Some or all of your key evidence is missing, incomplete, or even faked! What about that? That proves you're wrong and I'm right!" This fallacy usually includes fallacious “Either-Or Reasoning” as well: E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos, and a fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning. The recently famous "Flying Spaghetti Monster" meme is a contemporary refutation of this fallacy--simply because we cannot conclusively disprove the existence of such an absurd entity does not argue for its existence. link |
|
21 Dec 22 - 01:16 PM (#4159871) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well that's right, and what adds an extra layer of difficulty is the deliberate positioning of claims beyond all the science and beyond all the laws of nature as we know them. The claim for the existence of a supernatural, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being who has no beginning nor end is the star performer in that regard. Note the four little words "as we know them" which I inserted there as a hasty afterthought. That implies open-mindedness, the opposite of a closed world view. Science is not about proving things (such as theories, for example), nor is it about proving that you're wrong. It's about building on human knowledge, edging forward (and sometimes back). If you tell me that you've seen fairies at the bottom of your garden, fine. I can't prove that you're wrong though I think you are holding a highly improbable notion and I'm at liberty to tell you so. If you get cross with me for being rather dismissive, all I can do is say that I'll look at whatever evidence you think you have but I'm certainly not going to spend hours of time that I'll never get back reading every word of link after link. I commented on the three links supplied by Helen after spending a fair amount of time on the lengthy and involved third one especially, and I've looked at the excerpts from Radin's book that are available without my having to buy the book. I found them to be replete with the "according to physicists/ cosmologists" kind of weasel words and I noted from his brief wiki entry that he's generally regarded as, well, somewhat off-beam... But don't trust my weasel words, look him up! |
|
21 Dec 22 - 01:52 PM (#4159874) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I am no scientist but as a high availability computing specialist I like to think my thinking is usually logical. Yes, scientists can be proved wrong but only by other scientists and by applying scientific principles to whatever is to be proved or disproved. Sound science cannot be negated by wishful thinking, pure anecdotal evidence or by the opinions of non scientists. I accept the views real scientists on precognition and other related topics as I cannot justify any other action. This is not simply an appeal to authority. It is the only logical option and Bertrand Russell explains it far better in his "The will to doubt" Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the oppositopinion. The scepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.” Scientists are not saying such things do not exist. They say that there is not enough evidence to prove that existence. That is good enough for me to be sceptical. Any "evidence" from non scientific sources is irrelevant. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 02:05 PM (#4159877) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw WHAT REFUTES SCIENCE: - Better science WHAT DOESN'T REFUTE SCIENCE: - Your feelings - Your religion - your favourite politician - Your half-baked opinion after watching two YouTube videos (I suppose that last one could encompass reading stuff written by charlatans pretending to be scientists...) I can't remember where I got that from, but I didn't make it up, honest! |
|
21 Dec 22 - 06:02 PM (#4159884) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Argument from Ignorance is one a number of errors called Informal Fallacies One of the most common I encounter is called "circular reasoning" from this list. Many of the ones in the list are easy to make, and we all fall into some of them from time to time. Some of them straddle a couple of the categories and require some real thought & effort to see exactly why there is a problem. Note: **It is quite possible that certain specific claims can indeed be true, but put forward with totally baseless reasoning!** This does NOT make other similar claims or concepts more likely! One of the very early flawed approaches most of us encounter is being asked "Do you believe in God?" The very phrasing of the question assumes that there IS a 'god' and you are expected to agree. The proselytizing churches, JWs and LDS who knock on doors, begin with the assumption that they have 'truth' and only have your soul on their mind. The J.W.s in particular once read me several bible verses to 'explain' what God wanted. When I explained, as politely as possible, that I didn't exactly take the bible as ultimate authority, I was told, "We'll be back!: and LO.. in a few days an older fellow appeared and read me OTHER Bible verses to make the point! He never quite seemed to get MY point that if I didn't accept that that bible was the direct word of God, why would I believe that Bible verses verify the existence of his God? Kinda funny... except that it isn't too different from multiple 'studies' and stories that are supposed to give extra credence to paranormal assertions.... I LIKE the idea of telepathy, and have read large amounts of science-FICTION that use the idea. Still, I have no experience of it, and when I have been told..(several times).. that I need to "Open myself" and allow it to happen, my answer is.."You mean I have to believe IN ORDER to believe" I guess my DNA was just wired wrong.... |
|
21 Dec 22 - 06:47 PM (#4159890) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "Many of the ones in the list are easy to make, and we all fall into some of them from time to time. Some of them straddle a couple of the categories and require some real thought & effort to see exactly why there is a problem." Absolutely. I pointed out the weasel words in the extracts from Radin's book (of the kind that appeal to vague authority, to "physicists", to "cosmologists" and other unnamed "experts," that sort of thing), then caught myself just in time from falling into the same trap... |
|
21 Dec 22 - 06:53 PM (#4159892) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie I have at times suspected that I had 'known' some event or other was going to happen BUT I have found a sure cure for such supposition by asking myself if I KNOW what is going to happen tomorrow. I DON'T. Therefore I know that the chances are quite good that I didn't know the other times, either. |
|
21 Dec 22 - 08:19 PM (#4159894) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I could make the rather whimsical and cod-philosophical point that "going to happen tomorrow" is a rather strange construct. Believing that it's possible to predict such an event has to presuppose that the event is cast in stone, fated to happen. That can be the case for something planned to happen by we humans, but unpredictable "random" events such as tsunamis or a meteorite strike...? As I've said before, "precognition" of tsunamis or meteorite strikes by the chosen few has to be set alongside the hundreds of millions of we inferior beings who are unlucky enough never to have such premonitions. Then we have to hark back to our discussion of coincidences... I think that some adherents to fanciful notions make the mistake of thinking that sceptics are simply looking for trouble, ignoring or excoriating their brand of "science" in favour of a stonewall resort to "what proper science is." Not a bit of it: we are doing exactly the same thing that we did in our training, never dismissing stuff out of hand but always being sceptical of the new - until we get evidence. There are dozens of posts of mine in ancient threads that declare that I know not whether God exists, yet I'd wrestle Richard Dawkins to death should he claim to be a greater atheist than I... :-) |
|
22 Dec 22 - 10:26 AM (#4159922) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D One of the great seducers to mystical beliefs is 'vivid dreams'. Many years ago, after college, I had a dream about a girl I had known from high school. In the dream she was somehow very upset and having problems. It was so strong that I wrote her a letter about it, hoping she was okay. It sat, unmailed, on my desk as I gradually forgot even the basic content. I finally threw it out, and I'm now glad I never dropped that confusing confession into her life. Dreams can be so scary, detailed ... and sometimes positive... that it is tempting to take them seriously. I suppose that they DO often reflect our waking concerns and fears & wishes, but too often people assume they are getting 'messages' from....??? Stories of 'remembering' past lives (often around famous people) are common.. and of course, who can disprove them? The neurons in our brains firing in odd ways... both while asleep and in odd waking moments... can create 'memories' that we believe are true, while being only memories of brain activity.... but the same brain that had the experience has to process it, and the **Will to Believe** is very strong for some of us. I'm sure that some who read this will say that, "Hey..I had this dream that predicted..or reminded.. X, Y, and Z.. and it happened just that way!" I can only shrug. That experience, real or not, is now part of you. It is not important that *I* believe it or not. ----------- So, last night I dreamed about sitting with several friends who were trying to teach me a strange card game with rules that were both explicit and contradictory... and somehow, all the cards that we were dealt were aces... after being required to ante a penny... unless you had a nickle, which had to be placed in a different part of the table.... then... ... then it gets confusing as new people show up in odd costumes, leaving me wondering if...if... ummmm ---------------------------- Today I am back to my usual picky self, as is obvious... |
|
22 Dec 22 - 12:04 PM (#4159925) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I've found that the best way to handle vivid, scary or disturbing dreams is to get up for a wee. |
|
22 Dec 22 - 12:44 PM (#4159926) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog Sometimes science has to play catch up in order to 'explain' something that we experience. Most of us experience dreams at some point in our lives. There have been numerous explanations or theories about dreams but we still don't know why we do dream. We might never know. |
|
22 Dec 22 - 01:07 PM (#4159928) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick .... is to get up for a wee. The really disturbing time comes when you get the two steps in the wrong order. DC |
|
22 Dec 22 - 01:34 PM (#4159930) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'm not there with that yet, Doug, though I've had a precognition that it's going to happen... |
|
22 Dec 22 - 01:54 PM (#4159936) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Are you taking the piss? |
|
22 Dec 22 - 02:45 PM (#4159940) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen So we are back to talking about male genitalia and bodily functions? |
|
22 Dec 22 - 03:56 PM (#4159943) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw At least they're real... |
|
22 Dec 22 - 07:52 PM (#4159961) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: FreddyHeadey Derren Brown did a good video showing how to predict the winner of horse races. https://youtu.be/_Y2R5ID_xg0 playing @ 1¾ speed helps. After you've watched a bit you can skip to about 29:00 If I had a couple of dreams which came true I'd be asking a mathematician to explain the odds. |
|
22 Dec 22 - 08:55 PM (#4159972) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw A bit reminiscent of the estimable Horace Batchelor, who advertised his pools-winning method on Radio Luxembourg in the sixties and seventies. 'Twas he who had to spell out the towns name in his address, K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M. Begod, I heard him under the bedsheets a thousand times... |
|
23 Dec 22 - 06:56 AM (#4159991) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick The last time I experienced precognition was next Tuesday. DC |
|
23 Dec 22 - 07:53 AM (#4159998) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Helen. If you could not predict that thread drift would happen then you need to work on your precognitions skills... |
|
23 Dec 22 - 08:18 AM (#4160000) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "Precognition skills..." :-) |
|
23 Dec 22 - 12:42 PM (#4160020) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Now here's something shudderingly uncanny. My old Superdry watch was getting a bit tatty so I ordered a new one for my daughter to give me for Christmas. At exactly 12.46pm today my old watch suddenly died on me. Kaput. Finito. Belly-up. At 12.52pm my new watch arrived in the post. I am claiming that my old watch had decided that this house wasn't big enough for two Superdrys so had decided to give up the ghost just as the new one arrived. Now as the demise occurred six minutes before the new one arrived, the only possible explanation is that the old watch had precognition! It knew that the new one was imminent! I can brook no other explanation! Bill...? |
|
23 Dec 22 - 02:02 PM (#4160031) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome And of course 6 minutes is very significant because... e |
|
23 Dec 22 - 04:24 PM (#4160048) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk .... because the new one was six minutes fast :-) ? |
|
23 Dec 22 - 06:43 PM (#4160058) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw No! I'm not having it! My old watch had precognition! There can be no other explanation! Sod the science! |
|
24 Dec 22 - 09:51 AM (#4160111) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Oh yes, Steve.. I'm sure your watch had 'it'.. Why, I once had a refrigerator that died... 2 days after the store warranty expired! And about colds.. I had a dentist appointment on the 19th to have a major extraction. On the 15th, my nose started dripping, and on the 16th I had to call and cancel. Now I'm rescheduled for Jan. 10... at which time I expect a snowstorm will make driving impossible. Evidence just mounts every day... |
|
24 Dec 22 - 09:55 AM (#4160112) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I remember the good old days when replacement car exhausts had a 12-month warranty and never made it beyond month 13... and on my last car the parking sensor broke down one week outside the three-year warranty... |
|
24 Dec 22 - 10:02 AM (#4160116) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Does the phrase "planned obsolescence" seem relevant? |
|
24 Dec 22 - 11:20 AM (#4160126) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome The exhausts didn't last as long because of preignition not precognition... |
|
24 Dec 22 - 02:42 PM (#4160145) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I think it was more to do with Bury Kwikfit ripping me off. They saw me coming...which is, of course, precognition... |
|
24 Dec 22 - 03:14 PM (#4160150) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stilly River Sage Good one, Dave - you landed a perfect 10 with that quip! |
|
25 Dec 22 - 07:21 AM (#4160204) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I find the attempts to deny the existence of certain phenomenon of consciousness to be virtually meaningless since we don't yet know the the true extent and components of consciousness, I speculate the fractal nature of consciousness includes a quantum quality. To rationalize in a world of the quantum is foolish. Precognition does not provide a perfect blueprint of the future but seems to be close at best since quantum reality can be two things at once. I have stated my case and made examples of the phenomenon which will be ignored or denied by the usual suspects but my speculation is undeterred. I can be a minority of one and still be correct. |
|
25 Dec 22 - 08:00 AM (#4160205) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome As far as I can see no-one has tried to deny the existence of "certain phenomenon of consciousness" (whatever that may mean) I have certainly only ever said that I do not know and until someone can provide proof I shall remain sceptical. The only people dealing in absolutes, as far as I can see, are those saying that precognition definitely exists. Merry Christmas BTW :-) |
|
25 Dec 22 - 01:20 PM (#4160224) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel If not deny, ignore or misunderstand. I would rate my own precog as close but no cigar. |
|
25 Dec 22 - 02:55 PM (#4160228) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Thanks Dave the Gnome, and Donuel. A reminder to read the meta analysis of scientific experiments which I linked to on Date: 27 Nov 22 - 07:31 PM, and please consider reading some of the scientific studies they have analysed. I am seriously interested in other people's opinions of the actual topic, and I am seriously not interested in the person who continues to try to block the discussion or divert it by continually mentioning his private parts. No one on this thread has a rusted on opinion about precognition, except for the person who continues to try blocking the discussion and refuses to post any of his own analyses of studies like those mentioned in the meta analysis article, despite repeatedly claiming to not only have an unspecified scientific qualification but also a scientific mind. Go figure. I'll make a confession. By choosing to mention Dean Radin's book instead of some of the other studies referenced in the meta analysis, I was dangling the irresistible bait knowing that a certain person could not stop himself from over-reacting. We all need a bit of comic relief sometimes. Mea culpa! :-D |
|
25 Dec 22 - 03:19 PM (#4160232) Subject: RE: BS: Precognit From: Steve Shaw Have another vat of Christmas sherry, Helen. No-one is blocking anything or anybody else, no-one is incessantly rattling on about his or her toilet parts, no-one is refusing to mention unspecified "scientific studies" (there aren't any that I know of, and the only science in your links/book is the gentle refutations of the "studies" by actual scientists who are applying the scientific process). Merry Boxing Day! |
|
25 Dec 22 - 06:11 PM (#4160247) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw A small point: I might have missed something, but I've just trawled this thread and I can't find any reference to anyone mentioning their, er, "private parts," not even once, let alone continually. I did mention a month ago, in a whimsical attempt to lighten the load, an arty photo of some distant bare bums on Bondi Beach (I love the alliteration...), but, as I am a five-figure number of miles from that location, I can assure all that that particular portion of my anatomy was not in that photo. It pays to check the facts before attempting character assassination... |
|
25 Dec 22 - 06:43 PM (#4160251) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick I think it might be my fault, Steve, when I lowered the tone by making a joke based on your comment about the best way to handle vivid, scary or disturbing dreams. DC |
|
25 Dec 22 - 06:57 PM (#4160253) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen "bollocks" From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 23 Nov 22 - 06:47 PM "kicked in the nuts" From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 24 Nov 22 - 04:04 AM "And I get that naked-in-public dream a lot, Eliza (down, girls)" From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 25 Nov 22 - 04:19 AM "I sat on the bog, then realised I didn't have to. I was suffering from déjà poo" From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 26 Nov 22 - 09:26 AM "bare bums" From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 27 Nov 22 - 08:31 PM "I've found that the best way to handle vivid, scary or disturbing dreams is to get up for a wee." From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 22 Dec 22 - 12:04 PM |
|
25 Dec 22 - 07:52 PM (#4160254) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw My word, I really must cut out this peppering of Mudcat with my hardcore porn! I'd like to politely suggest that you're supping on thin gruel here, Helen, and that you have far better things to do. What this really comes down to is that (like the rest of us) you have you your fantasies and wild imaginings, but, unlike the rest of us, you want us to accept them as legitimate and respectable and to regard them as matters of real substance, and, if we don't, you go on the attack. Like one or two others here, I've read your links and read some extracts from your suggested book and found absolutely nothing convincing and lots that is extremely dubious. Yes I have a scientific background (I can't help it, and you could lose me in two minutes on Shakespeare and Keats) and I've looked at your links through that lens. But it's far from just me. I invited you to read the last few pages of that third link, just before the myriad of references section. You'll find them to be full of caveats and doubt about the methods used in your alleged "scientific studies." Go online and you'll find that the consensus is that precognition is regarded by science generally as pseudoscience and you'll find plenty of excoriations from respected sources of your man's book. Stick your head above the parapet and put your case bravely for sure, but, as I said, your gruel is thin and you shouldn't be surprised when your point of view is severely criticised, especially when you turn to having a go at those who disagree with you, which you've done often in this thread. And yes it's annoying when several of us bring levity to the thread, but, honestly, it's a topic that invites levity. |
|
25 Dec 22 - 07:59 PM (#4160255) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Incidentally, the only conceivable reference to MY "private parts" was in my "déjà fu" joke. As a woman of the world, you must, I'm sure, realise that "kicked in the nuts" is overwhelmingly used in a metaphorical sense only. None of your other accusations have anything to do with MY anatomical credentials as you alleged. |
|
25 Dec 22 - 10:41 PM (#4160262) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel There are people who have an awareness of a topic but choose to ignore it. There are even people who have no understanding of a topic. Finally there are people who are willfully ignorant and rant with fury. IT IS UNCOMMON ONE PERSON WINS THAT TRIFECTA. Most evidence in science and physics is proven indirectly. On the science front today new evidence is being gathered at an accellerated rate. For example ; a new fundamental force is being exhibited in a Fermi lab regarding mouns, photinos are evidenced as a component of dark matter in string theory, Nobel prize winner Penrose is making the connection of consciousness to the quantum micro tubules in our brain... etc.For those in the 21st century who wish to keep up I implore you to ignore the class clown and treat his distraction as a passing of gas, even if sometimes you have to hold your breath. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 12:46 AM (#4160267) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen One of the things I've been thinking about is that not everyone has telepathic or precognitive skills, and some people who have them deny having them and possibly actively deny the very existence of the skill within themselves. Therefore they do not want to fine tune the skill. There are, however, other people who do not have these sorts of skills and therefore want to deny the existence of those skills altogether, for everyone on earth, not just for themselves. It's important to be aware, too, that different people who have these sorts of skills may not have all of the skills. Some people are telepathic, some can predict events in the future, some can pick up information about events in the past or in other geographic locations, some can see spirits, etc etc. Most of the people I have ever met who have admitted to having one or more of these skills tended to have a strong sense of the importance of maintaining a care and concern for universal values, i.e. we are all on this earth, living this life, and we should work together to achieve a better world. I know that some people have the skills and use them for negative ends, but I can't remember ever personally meeting anyone like that. Now, on the matter of skills and working towards improving those skills, I think of it as being similar to having the talent and/or training to play a musical instrument or to sing. Different instruments, different skill levels, people who focus on improving those skills, people who have not had the advantage of training to improve those skills, people who have a natural talent or genius who manage to bring those talents and skills into the world, regardless of the obstacles in their way, or people who refuse to enhance the skill because of their denial of its importance in their lives. It makes no sense for someone to deny that that musical talent or skill exists at all, in the world, for anyone on this earth, simply because that person does not have that talent or skill him/herself. It exists regardless of whether or not some people deny it. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 03:22 AM (#4160268) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome You see, Helen. There you go. Your last post is peppered with references claiming that such skills really do exist. All that I, and others, have been saying is that I don't know. In the absence of hard evidence I will take my view from the majority of scientists who say it is not proven. See the problem here? It is you that says those with the opposite view are being inflexible while, all the time, being so blinkered in your opinion that you indulge in stating that opinion as fact and attacking anyone who disagrees. You are doing yourself no favours at all. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:13 AM (#4160278) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I read this letter in the Guardian this morning that sort of chimed with this topic for me. It's about how some people are taken in by the attractiveness of political bullshit, but there are echoes of being taken in by pseudoscience too: Aditya Chakrabortty ("Here’s the essential skill for assessing our politics: knowing the difference between lies and bullshit," 22 December) asks why so many people buy into political bullshit. I think the answer is that some people have the cognitive ability to choose their own facts and reality, and to believe in these wholeheartedly. These people are the targets of political bullshitters, who paint for them a picture that is always vastly more attractive than the grim reality presented by facts. Climate bullshitters tell us the planet isn’t warming, Boris Johnson promises Brexit will be a success, Donald Trump declares that he’ll make America great again. Bullshit believers are able to live in a world where all these things are true, a parallel universe far rosier than our own. It’s why climate deniers tend to also be Covid deniers. Some people may only be visitors to the flipside, like the voters taken in by Johnson and his “oven-ready” deal in 2019. Others live there permanently, tormented by a secret fear that their scaffolding of lies will be torn down. It is why they shout at and abuse us when we try to challenge them with facts and evidence. [Dr Richard Milne] For "political" read "pseudoscience" and maybe you'll see what I mean. In the last few hours I've been shouted at and abused by a chap who rarely seems to know what he's talking about and who seems unable to communicate his ideas with any degree of clarity (possibly because they are inchoate, to put it kindly, even in his own mind) and I've been subjected to a litany of vulgar untruths from someone who seems to think I'm threatening her world view. All we ask for is real evidence (funny little word, "real"...) and not, as Dave says, opinion as fact. By the way, I should like to know how the apparent sudden ability to foresee what will happen tomorrow involves "skill" and how we can work on and develop such "skills..." the frequent use of the word "skill" in this context appears to me to be an attempt to accord legitimacy to what is no more, it seems, that mere colourful imaginings. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:19 AM (#4160280) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stanron Someone from the far left criticising Political Bullshit is rather like a delayed Christmas present. Thank you. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:22 AM (#4160282) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw That = than |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:26 AM (#4160283) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw So, Stanron, you don't think that the oven-ready brexit deal, climate change denial, covid denial and the sloganising of Donald Trump are political bullshit? Wow. Grab yourself a rather large espresso is my advice! |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:32 AM (#4160284) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog Well difficult to vote on Brexit without the gift of precognition. I voted remain but even I had to accept that it might turn out that we will be better off after leaving. I said to give it 5 years but it will probably be 10 years before we get a true picture given the problems due to covid and the situation in Ukraine. We are coming up to 2 years since we left. I still think it was the wrong decision but I will only know that for sure at some point in the future. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:37 AM (#4160287) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'd argue that one with you, but maybe not in this 'ere thread... |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:50 AM (#4160289) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stanron A double gift! Thank you again. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 06:55 AM (#4160293) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome It's harping back to what I said earlier, Rain Dog. I am no scientist so I have to rely on a majority of experts to tell me that a "sixth sense" can be explained by more logical means than being opined here. Likewise, my knowledge of economics is not deep enough to argue against the majority of economists who tell me that leaving the EU will be bad in the short and long term. Stanron - Are you saying that bullshit spouted by Johnson and Trump is not as bad as the bullshit spouted by some left wing politicians? Can you give us any current examples of the damage caused by the left? And, no, Putin is no Communist. He is a criminal capitalist out to enrich himself. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 07:17 AM (#4160295) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stanron Bullshit is bullshit. Presents are presents. Please accept my heartfelt seasonal greetings. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 07:36 AM (#4160297) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "Well difficult to vote on Brexit without the gift of precognition." Grr. You got that one wrong, mate. Don't you realise that it's a skill, not a gift? ;-) |
|
26 Dec 22 - 08:07 AM (#4160301) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Same to you and yours too, Stanron. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 08:11 AM (#4160302) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Have another gift too - Seeing as we have strayed away from bodily functions and private parts let us try a musical interlude Pee po belly bum drawers :-D |
|
26 Dec 22 - 08:24 AM (#4160303) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel When it involves consciousness even honest Nobel Prize winnerw admit they are materialists but they don't know what the material is in consciousness. Indirect evidence saves the day. We have never been inside the Sun but indirect evidence explains what it is like. There is nothing wrong with sticking to basic truths. There are basic truths in the universe like symmetry, fractal beauty and chaos/entropy. Even in the flawed quantum mechanics where symmetry appears to break down. THE UNIVERSE IS LAZY. Everywhere the conservation of energy uses the least energy in every system and structure. Ya know Einstien wanted his theory to be called something like invarience theory, someone else named it Relativity. Basicly Al's theory explains a symmetry of motion. Keeping experiments simple is fundamentally sound. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 08:33 AM (#4160304) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Basicly Einstein demonstrated a symmery in motion , time and energy. He just took freefall for a ride and redefined gravity. Keep it simple stupid comes to mind. However consciousness goes against the grain and seems to involve going beyond symmetry. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 09:22 AM (#4160305) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Where does precognition fit into that tortuous post? |
|
26 Dec 22 - 09:28 AM (#4160306) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Doug Chadwick |
|
26 Dec 22 - 10:05 AM (#4160307) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk > Why, I once had a refrigerator that died... 2 days after the store > warranty expired .... and related phenomena: There's a reason for that (other than humans' tendency to not notice things *not* happening, but that's a different coredump). I was once advised, by someone in a position to know what he was talking about, to never ever buy Philips TVs. "They've got Mean Time To Failure down to such an art that they always break down two weeks after the warranty expires," says he, "and it's always something different." It's entirely possible that, since he fixed TVs for a living, he had the copper's jaundiced view of life; but I've heard a similar saga about Henry Ford and the king pins in his cars' engines, and it is a matter of record that the lifetimes of incandescent lightbulbs were *reduced* by the Phoebus cartel from 2500 hours to 1000 hours. These are consumer items, folks. You shouldn't be surprised at practices aimed at increasing consumption: your economy needs *you*. We now return you to your expected subject line. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 02:49 PM (#4160313) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Referring again to this meta analysis: Feeling the future : A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events Abstract In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10 -10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 5.1 × 10 9, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10 -5, and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by intense “ p-hacking”—the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of the experiments to be 0.20 for the complete database and 0.24 for the independent replications, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 03:05 PM (#4160314) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Regarding the statistics in the meta analysis, I studied and passed the statistics unit for my MBA degree, however I did not use anything more than basic statistics in any of my work roles so I am not up to speed on it all. What I do get from the article is that replication of experiments has yielded a positive result for many of the experiments to an extent which is more than random. The reason I was explaining about different people having different skill levels is that not everyone has the skill, and if experiments were conducted using subjects whose results were greater than that expected of random or average results, then the statistics may be even higher than those in the various experiments. I am assuming that the subjects were randomly chosen in most of the experiments referenced in the meta analysis rather than being chosen because they appeared to have a better than average result in the trials. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 03:45 PM (#4160318) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw But it's not the statistical analysis, is it? It's the fact that you can apply statistical analysis to flawed data and still get the significant differences you want to get, though they won't be true. The bottom line here is not the statistics - it's looking at all the potential flaws and the potential confounding factors in the methodology applied. That's precisely what the scientific process does before applying statistical analysis, and that is what was done in the last few pages in your third link. You're talking biology here, innit. The precisions that can be applied to physics and chemistry don't work too well when you working with flesh and blood, unfortunately. Even when you're dealing with ninety different "experiments." Now what was that about quality, not quantity...? |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:08 PM (#4160332) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen You really are an expert in bull$h1t, aren't you Steve? And rule #1, you never admit you are wrong or on the wrong track. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:21 PM (#4160335) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw That is not in any way a proper response to my post, is it? You are so swallowed up by your confirmation bias that you can't be objective about the studies you continually refer to, even though several of us have addressed them in some detail through the lens of real science. You WANT precognition to be true. You WON'T hear of any doubts expressed about it. You DON'T think that any caveats can possibly be valid. You are so certain that you have the "skills" that you not only won't hear of any demurring but you actually attack those who justifiably demur. The blinkers are well and truly on. You clearly have a mission. Good luck with that, and, of course, you may be right, but in the meantime don't be surprised if we start to worry about you... |
|
26 Dec 22 - 05:34 PM (#4160339) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen I have seen no actual detailed analysis from you about any of the scientific articles. You make general, vague statements about why you don't believe in any of the studies and their outcomes. If you were one of my tertiary students and submitted the rubbish you have spouted in this thread as an assignment, I would have failed you on lack of proper analytical process and sound, logical presentation of your arguments. But keep saying the same thing over and over and over again. Some people believe you only because you are so emphatic and repetitive. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 06:06 PM (#4160342) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I read and commented on all three of your links and I read whatever extracts I could from the rather zany book you recommended, without actually having to buy it. It's all here in this thread. You appear to be refusing to read the critiques at the end of the third link, the pages preceding the long list of references. I've actually spent quite a long time on this. To you, that isn't valid for the only reason that you don't agree, and you compound the error by continually denying that I've done it! That's a strong symptom of confirmation bias, of your mission if you like, on your part, don't ya think? We know that you sincerely believe in precognition and that you think you personally have the "skill." The problem is, you can't demonstrate either, and it's a rock-solid cert that you won't address that challenge if and when you respond to this post. As for what you might have done had I been one of your "tertiary students," (what an arrogant allusion!), well I can't think that you'd have had a chance as I would have dropped your tuition like a ton of bricks. My university education at Imperial College was solidly grounded in proper science. Not a brag, that, just a simple fact, and some things never leave you. Your "tuition," I'm guessing, would have come a very poor second. By the way, I did a course on statistics whilst there. Like you, I've forgotten a lot of it, but, unlike you, I appear to at least remember what statistics can and can't do. |
|
26 Dec 22 - 09:22 PM (#4160352) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "Some people believe you only because you are so emphatic and repetitive." ...And that's not a very nice thing to say about those poor folks! |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:19 AM (#4160362) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie "Some people believe you only because you are so emphatic and repetitive." Sorry, Helen. If that were the criterion that I was judging by, I would have difficulty choosing sides. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 07:41 AM (#4160379) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Such is the method and means of the old guard. It is never a good bet to bet against new discoveries. Time and truth is on your side Helen. I see the issue is consciousness with all its subsets of awareness. It is a difficult but fascinating subject |
|
27 Dec 22 - 07:56 AM (#4160382) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel The subject is too complex for the reactionary noise from a nay-sayer who has nothing to contribute. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 07:58 AM (#4160383) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Time may well prove that precognition is a recognisable sense Donuel but as yet there is no evidence of it. As I keep saying, no one has denied it is a possibility. The only people dealing in absolutes and disregarding anyone else's opinions are you and Helen. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 09:09 AM (#4160389) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel You bring up a good point. Life responds to its environment. If you consider time to be part of our environment it is not odd to take a closer look at how symbolic communicating life may respond to time, it is not odd to consider the question of time and our response. Plants do it, we do it. Symmetry has a mirror aspect everywhere in the universe. Time may also have a symmetry. Feynman showed how particles move in a symmetry of time, but not in a time traveler way. For our consciousness to have some awareness of this is a reasonable assumption. As yet I see no evidence to refute this as you see no evidence to support it. There is more evidence than you have seen. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 09:29 AM (#4160391) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel As you know I resist conventional thinking. Even genius' fall prey to conventional thinking. Einstein carried his luggage, Maxwell carried his luggage, Jane Goodall carried her luggage, Fermi carried his luggage. The answer was wheels on their luggage and it was there all along. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 10:16 AM (#4160396) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw We're not talking about "new discoveries." We're talking about old claims, as old as the hills. Prophets, soothsayers, fortune-tellers, doom-mongers and the like have been around for millennia. Try as you might, you can't come up with proper evidence. Until you do, and you might I suppose, it's merely unsubstantiated claims. It's amazing how you and Helen can try to give credence and respectability to pseudoscience by using expressions such as "skills" and "new discoveries." "The subject is too complex for the reactionary noise from a nay-sayer who has nothing to contribute." This is just downright rude. The only complexities in this subject are the ones you insert yourselves via flawed data, fake experimentation and the gross misuse of statistics. You can fool some of the people some of the time - mainly yourselves. As for reactionary noise, my main reaction to all this is simply to say, you have an interesting notion there that seems to go against the laws of nature as we know them, the principle of causality, for example. Can you demonstrate it with evidence that IS evidence? That's not reactionary noise. That's a simple request for some of the genuine science that so often seems to elude you. In sum, you claim the chocolate teapot. I say I can't prove you wrong, so show me your evidence. Result? You go into a frustrated attack mode... |
|
27 Dec 22 - 11:36 AM (#4160399) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome "As yet I see no evidence to refute this as you see no evidence to support it" Donuel. Exactly. There is no scientific evidence to support precognition and yet you and Helen insist it is real. Your phraseology in the above statement indicates that you believe it because you find no reason to refute it and because you cannot refute it, you accept it as fact. Well, how about this. There are galactic messengers called Xylicphoos that know the secrets of everyone's souls. They whisper to me on the night of every waxing gibbous moon and last time they told me about you, the tricycle and the cheese cake. You have no evidence to refute this so it must be true! Send all your money to... |
|
27 Dec 22 - 02:31 PM (#4160411) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen My main aim in contributing to this discussion is to make it easy for both or all sides to state their cases in a rational and courteous manner without having to deal with deliberate distractions, or other unnecessary interventions, especially those intended to stop the discussion altogether. Find the evidence, for or against, and let's discuss it like reasonable human beings, please. It doesn't matter which side of the debate I am on, or anyone is on, as long as we can discuss it in a courteous manner with emphasis on looking at the science. If you want to know what I think about the topic, please read MY words, here in black and white. Please don't only read the interpretation of my words as written by someone else, especially if there is a bias against me for personal reasons which motivates that particular interpretation. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 03:13 PM (#4160412) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw You and Donuel have been very rude at times! I'm not bothered. As for evidence, there's no evidence against, any more than there's any evidence against the existence of God or the chocolate teapot. But there's no evidence in favour either. Assertions (wallowing in such certainty!) about who and who hasn't got the "skill," or a bunch of very flawed experiments that even scientists in your links have expressed doubts about, not to speak of blinding stats that are being used to analyse what is probably badly flawed data, are not evidence. By the way, I'll say it again: no-one is trying to block the discussion. Do continue with your input and I promise to be civil in my refutations (as indeed I'm being in this post). What I can't promise you is a free ride for your pseudoscience. If that's what you desire, I'm sure you can find succour in parapsychology forums somewhere. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 03:21 PM (#4160413) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman Steve, my upbringing was atheist, however something happened to me which was inexplicable and while it does not prove to me that there is a god, it did make me realise that there is some form of afterlife. the incident that occurred was not of my seeking, it happened and there was no explanation for it. i think that you are not open minded on this subject. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 03:33 PM (#4160414) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Helen: you said on the 26th "I have seen no actual detailed analysis from you about any of the scientific articles. You make general, vague statements about why you don't believe in any of the studies and their outcomes." You have studied statistics. Steve has studied and has expertise in various aspects of science. My college degree is in Philosophy (logic and reasoning). I can attest that Steve's posts are clear, relevant and follow classical standards of discourse. The fact that he does not post long, turgid, and detailed examples of his points in no way makes them vague! To do so about most scientific disciplines would require more space and complexity than you...or even I.. would bother to read. The fact that you DO inundate us with statistics in no way supports your basic assumptions (that precognition and/or telepathy are 'likely'). It would require more space and links to how Logical inference is derived than even you have posted about statistics. You want to pursue it? be my guest Once you have sorted out deduction, induction.. go on to abduction and the various informal fallacies. You are welcome to **believe** anything you wish about various metaphysical concepts, but as has been said here .. and in many religious contexts, "The burden of proof is on the asserter." |
|
27 Dec 22 - 03:39 PM (#4160415) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well you're clearly not going to divulge details and I won't ask. I've experienced no evidence for a God or an afterlife but I don't know for sure whether or not they're there. How could I know? Having spent a lifetime revelling in the magic of the real world in all its glory and diversity, I've formed the view that there is no reason at present to suspect that there are natural laws that can counteract the laws we currently know from science. If you think that means a closed mind, then you're misreading me. I would never assert that there's no God, no precognition or no chocolate teapot. It's a shame that the people who do believe in such things are the people who do all the asserting, then shout down the people who simply ask for evidence. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 03:41 PM (#4160416) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw That was to Dick! |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:04 PM (#4160422) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D The way my mind works, I couldn't stop it from remembering the "Young Earth Creationism" thread and this immortal bit of reasoning: "I've told you before, the Bible is the ultimate authority. If I didn't appeal to it to prove itself, then it wouldn't be. Thus, it is not circular reasoning. " Yes, I re-read almost the entire thread, masochist that I am. Steve will remember and wonder why we kept at it. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:11 PM (#4160423) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Yes I respond to your rudeness based on my mood but I do not deny anyone's opinion nor do I claim to know what your feelings and beliefs are. My experiences shape my opinions and evidence reinforces my beliefs. You can not possibly have my experience. Academics have yet to scratch the surface of consciousness so we are all short on scientific proofs. We are all in the land of speculation and theory regarding this subject based on scientific proof, so don't claim anyone has iron clad laws or scientific proof. Most people consider the source. With UFO's the military is now the source when it used to be average joes who claimed sightings and the military denied it. Things and paradigms change. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:15 PM (#4160424) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Ah yes! I remember it well. I do occasionally revisit an old thread and read the whole thing. There are one or two that I feel seriously embarrassed about now (bingo balls, Dave...). Sometimes, as with this one, Bill, I simply enjoy the ride! As it happens, because covid has badly restricted our Christmas (though it hasn't struck our house as yet), I've probably had too much time on my hands lately... ;-) |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:25 PM (#4160425) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw You "don't deny anyone's opinion" but you said this on this very day: "The subject is too complex for the reactionary noise from a nay-sayer who has nothing to contribute." Hmm... "We are all in the land of speculation and theory regarding this subject based on scientific proof, so don't claim anyone has iron clad laws or scientific proof." No-one here has claimed "iron-clad laws" and we can leave "proof" to mathematicians I think. "Speculation" is about right but "theory regarding this subject" is pushing it... |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:26 PM (#4160426) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman I am not shouting anybody down.and I have not asked you for evidence. |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:29 PM (#4160427) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I didn't say you did, I don't think...? |
|
27 Dec 22 - 04:49 PM (#4160430) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman Steve, two posts which made me think that was the case quote Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 27 Dec 22 - 03:39 PM Well you're clearly not going to divulge details and I won't ask. I've experienced no evidence for a God or an afterlife but I don't know for sure whether or not they're there. How could I know? Having spent a lifetime revelling in the magic of the real world in all its glory and diversity, I've formed the view that there is no reason at present to suspect that there are natural laws that can counteract the laws we currently know from science. If you think that means a closed mind, then you're misreading me. I would never assert that there's no God, no precognition or no chocolate teapot. It's a shame that the people who do believe in such things are the people who do all the asserting, then shout down the people who simply ask for evidence. Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 27 Dec 22 - 03:41 PM That was to Dick! |
|
27 Dec 22 - 05:07 PM (#4160434) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well I didn't. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said, though it must have been a bit of a stretch so to do...? |
|
27 Dec 22 - 05:08 PM (#4160435) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome And just how is that asking you for evidence, Dick? |
|
27 Dec 22 - 07:25 PM (#4160449) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw The Wiki entry on "Misuse of statistics" is a fun read, especially if you start from the heading "types of misuse." The ninety experiments in the now-infamous "third link" were largely conducted in highly-artificial settings in which all manner of confoundings were all too possible (and it isn't just me saying that, as I've repeatedly said). In addition, in most cases it was next to impossible to execute perfect (or, indeed, anything like perfect) replications, a vital requisite of proper scientific experimental investigation. Sample sizes in controlled circumstances were often inadequate to be able to reach safe conclusions. Forced-choice responses were commonplace. Experimental drift (a gradual change of approach by the experimenter) was occasionally suspected. All this is contained in the comments made by those analysing the experiments. There was clearly a serious issue of patchy quality control, and many of the studies were not peer-reviewed. The thing is, none of this means that the studies should be ditched or the concept under experimentation should be dismissed. Not a bit of it. But what they add up to is something that merely piques the interest without getting anything close to reliable science, and there is nowhere near enough rigour for a theory to be constructed, for example. "Interesting, but more work needed with more rigour and a bit more neutrality." And only scoundrels try to blind us with statistics predicated on dodgy and inconsistent data... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:32 AM (#4160460) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman you posted a post then immediately below it said that was to me,FFS |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:48 AM (#4160462) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome We know that, Dick, but where in that post did he suggest that you asked for evidence? |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:54 AM (#4160463) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw That was because Bill posted in between my post and yours and I wanted to be clear that I was responding to you, not him. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:57 AM (#4160464) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Now Dave's done the same thing! I've just had a déjà vu... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 04:10 AM (#4160465) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome It's Dave ja vu this time Steve And Dick, your statement "it happened and there was no explanation for it" is an old catch all for the supernatural. If I don't understand something I simply put it down to my lack of knowledge. Not to god, the afterlife, fairies or any such mysticism. Arthur C Clarke once made the observation "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". I think that is very true. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 04:50 AM (#4160469) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman I am not impressed by your post Dave,I am not impressed by anything Arthur C Clarke might have said anymore than i am by Ron Hubbard. or any other mediocre science fiction writer Neither am i impressed by anything Dave Polshaw has said so far in this thread. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 05:02 AM (#4160471) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie I have learnt to clarify not that something is/was unexplainable but that it is/was unexplained. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 05:02 AM (#4160472) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome That's absolutely fine, Dick. My posts are not intended to impress but to put forward my point of view. In this instance my view was that your lack of explanation is not proof of anything supernatural but rather simply something that you did not understand. No shame in that at all as I will always admit that there are many things I don't understand. I do not try to mask the hole in my knowledge by putting it down to the supernatural though. The Clarke quote simply encapsulated that view. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 05:06 AM (#4160473) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Ebbing- I like that :-) I would perhaps modify it to unexplained as yet. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 05:08 AM (#4160474) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Ebbing=Ebbie I apologise on behalf of my spill chucker |
|
28 Dec 22 - 06:18 AM (#4160477) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stanron This thread tends towards tedium as a result of repetition. Not from everyone but from most. How about a diversion? We are all masters of Conditional Precognition. Like if you have A + B + C then D will happen. Steve Shaw is an enthusiastic master of this in food preparation. Others have different areas of expertise. So what if, in a flash of observational brilliance, an individual can see that at some point in the future that A + B + C will occur. Predicting D might seem like magic, but of course it's not. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 06:40 AM (#4160479) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel wHEN LIARS start playing the victim card it is beyond tedium. The games the usual suspect plays are as apparent as the unraveling of George Santos. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/26/politics/george-santos-admits-embellishing-resume/index.html |
|
28 Dec 22 - 07:14 AM (#4160482) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Making a prediction predicated on past repeated experiences which have yielded consistent results is called "science," Stanron. In the case of my cookery, replace "consistent" with "hopefully consistentish..." "I have learnt to clarify not that something is/was unexplainable but that it is/was unexplained." There's often a degree of mischief (and I said often, not always!) in the way some notions are put beyond explanation, that's to say, unexplainable according to what we know of the laws of nature right now (which is what I think Dave was saying). Things may be different in future, but science tends to work mostly with what we've got now. That doesn't mean a closed box, but pressing forward with new notions has to rely on evidence that jumps a high barrier as well as imagination. The claimed existence of God is deliberately put beyond the bounds of science: he's all-seeing, all-knowing, he made everything and he has no beginning nor end. There's no science that can get a grip on any of that. That means that God can't be disproven and, beyond making the rational case for his non-existence, we can do no more. Alternatively, we can believe in him and happily ignore the difficult questions. The notion of precognition violates the laws of nature as we currently understand them. It's a notion worthy of honest investigation, for sure, along scientific principles. But when its claimants speak with such certainty about knowing people who have it, or say they have it themselves, or talk about having skills that you can work on that others don't have, or when they shout at people who express perfectly justifiable scepticism and ask for far better evidence than the shaky stuff they put on offer, then that degree of mischief I mentioned comes to the fore. To me, it's not a respectable position and we can either ignore it or confront it. I do enjoy the ride meself... ;-) |
|
28 Dec 22 - 07:19 AM (#4160483) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "wHEN LIARS start playing the victim card it is beyond tedium. The games the usual suspect plays are as apparent as the unraveling of George Santos." Your failure of courage is palpable. If you want to call someone a liar, tell us who and (just as importantly) tell us what the lies are. If you can't or won't, I suppose we can just put it down to the frustration you must be feeling since you regard the argument as lost (it isn't, but you don't help yourself). |
|
28 Dec 22 - 07:40 AM (#4160484) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Computers are a notorious exception to the A+B+C=D rule. Purely electronic and logical devices, they do, with alarming regularity, come up with D and bit, Z or even a fish. It is easy to blame human error, corrupt memory or faulty data but I used to enjoy telling people it was solar flares :-D |
|
28 Dec 22 - 09:29 AM (#4160487) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I had solar flares in the swinging sixties, Dave. Every time the sun came out it made the little bells ring... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 10:45 AM (#4160494) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Backwoodsman ”I had solar flares in the swinging sixties” For several years in the early noughties I played an annual gig which was organised by the guy who invented Loon Pants. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 10:50 AM (#4160495) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Nope, Steve is wrong. Precognition does not defy causation. It depends on your view of time. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 10:51 AM (#4160496) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk > Computers are a notorious exception to the A+B+C=D rule. Hear, hear [snipissimo], but remember: "At the source of every error which is blamed on the computer you will find at least two human errors, including the error of blaming it on the computer." |
|
28 Dec 22 - 10:57 AM (#4160498) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I wore my solar flares for a local performance of "The Age Of Aquarius". They made me more receptive to the vibes, man. I came out of that show fully precognitive that I would never shag the girl in the next row with the long blond hair and Afghan coat. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 11:22 AM (#4160500) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman Nobody has yet proved a convincing argument on either side in this thread. as is usual with internet discussions. As for whether something exists depends on how one defines that particular thing, if one defines god as a spirit of goodness then that definitely exists as does the spirit of evil. why does Dave the Gnome post about his inabilty shag a girl in an Afghan coat? |
|
28 Dec 22 - 11:31 AM (#4160503) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome It was my precognitive skills that enabled me to determine the fact. The bloke I bought them off, "Cut my own throat" Higginshaw on Pendlebury market, assured me that I would be fighting the birds off by wearing them and as I could not disprove it, it must have been a fact. 2 days later, I was attacked by a flock of starlings after my chip barmcake from Sykes's chippy on Bolton Road. Funny things precognitive trousers... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 11:57 AM (#4160508) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman How can inanimate objects[trousers] be precognitive?, |
|
28 Dec 22 - 11:59 AM (#4160509) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I dunno. Ask one of those who understands the mysteries of the cosmos |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:24 PM (#4160519) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Steve said, "If you want to call someone a liar, tell us who ..." Donuel, you can't ignore the narcissist in the room. He wants to make sure everyone knows you are talking about him. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:24 PM (#4160520) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Nothing can be proven either way, Dick, because the advocates of precognition have put the issue beyond the laws of science as we currently understand them. But at least we can be entertained by this piece of utter balderdash: "Nope, Steve is wrong. Precognition does not defy causation. It depends on your view of time." If you think that precognition doesn't violate the principle of causality for the reason you've given, then you are putting it into that comfort zone beyond real science into which you think you've placed yourself in order to be beyond challenge. You know as well as I do that there there is no aspect of time that can either tweak itself, or be tweaked by wild human imaginings, in order to reconcile your causality problem. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:31 PM (#4160522) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Helen you told a string of fibs about me (don't worry, I don't sue) claiming that I continually rattled on about my, er, private parts (for the record, there wasn't a single instance! All checkable in the thread). Of course we know who Donuel was talking about but he lacks the courage to name names and (more importantly by far) spell out the lies he claims were told. He knows he'd better not, eh? Now I'm finding this to be a very interesting topic, so why don't we stick with it? Your decision! |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:33 PM (#4160523) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "why does Dave the Gnome post about his inabilty shag a girl in an Afghan coat?" Maybe he was too hot with the coat on and it put him off... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:34 PM (#4160524) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome You need to get the solar flares back on Steve. They will make all things clear. Man. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:35 PM (#4160525) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Oops, off-topic! :-( |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:55 PM (#4160528) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Donuel: "It depends on your view of time." Well, "views" of time are largely rhetorical. It is a common thing to act as though creating linguistic concepts in various degrees of complexity somehow imparts a separate reality to them. Whatever the relationship actually is between the laws of the universe and our ability to comprehend them, we are still just one unusually complex bit of the puzzle. Cosmologists, theologians, mathematicians, philosophers and a wide array of amateur speculators have proposed 'possible' versions of reality...including multiple dimensions, infinite recurring universes, and metaphysical 'beings'...etc. It gains some of them publication of articles and even teaching positions. Various others become objects of ridicule. This guy posted for years on USENET and mixed science with religion in jaw-dropping ways. He never faltered, he just enlarged. He has largely dropped out of sight, but he became so infamous that some of his rantings have been preserved. When you are bored, browse that article for awhile... There are/were many other posters in alt.sci.physics.new-theories..... which can still be accessed on groups.google.com. I doubt that many will bother, so here's on of Hammond's last "HAWKING & THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE Stepen Hawking mentions the Anthropic Principle 14 times in his book _ A Brief History of Time_. Since the book has sold 10 million copies in 45 languages we must conclude the Anthropic Principle is well known to Science. Hawking defines the Anthropic Principle on p 128-129: "We see the universe the way it is because we exist" and says: "Few people would quarrel with the validity or utility of the weak Anthropic Principle." .....' Unbeknownst to Stephen Hawking Religion long ago discovered the Anthropic Principle and identified it as the explanation of God (Berkeley 1710). "God" according to religion is in fact MIND. Hence when the mind of man came into existence, "reality" (sometimes called the world or the universe) also came into existence. Since we know that Homo sapiens are about 100,000 year old, the Anthropic Principle tells us that "reality" must be about 100,000 years old. Religion calculated this long ago and arrived at the famous figure of "6,000" years (Usher 1650) for the age of the universe. This was before modern science discovered Man is 100,000 years old not 6,000 which explains why they are a few years off. They are NOT 14 billion years off however! Religion simply points out that past history (including the Big Bang) is part of "human reality" hence the Anthropic Principle clearly explains why the Big Bang actually happened AFTER Biblical Creation even though Creation is only 100,000 years old! Fact is, the Anthropic Principle "explains" both God AND Creation. If Stepehn Hawking is so smart, why hasn't he realized that the Anthropic Principle explains the "Biblical" Creation as well as the "Big Bang" creation...? and why doesn't he realize that the Anthropic Principle is nothing other than the "Anthropomorphic God" of the Bible? Are scientists slow or what?" OK back to the usual... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 01:59 PM (#4160529) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome BTW Steve, how did you manage to predict the bingo numbers so accurately? |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:05 PM (#4160530) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw My balls were weighted, Dave (Do you think someone will think I'm talking about me privates?) |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:33 PM (#4160537) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Weighted balls in your solar flares? Hey, dude. Stop messing with my karma! |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:36 PM (#4160538) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Time isn't just time. It is spacetime and it varies relative to mass. Without knowing this there would be no GPS. How wude you are. You are talking to a Novel Prize winner. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:41 PM (#4160539) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I'm talking to a prize bullshitter you mean! |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:54 PM (#4160540) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome The measurement of time as we know it is a human manufactured construct. The passage of time, as in light moving from one point to another, is a constant. OK, it is deflected by strong gravitational fields but not enough for us rather insignificant entities to notice. If you are talking quantum physics, very few people understand to implications. Certainly not you or me. If yoh would just stop trying to be mystic and clever, I'm sure we would all get on better. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 02:57 PM (#4160541) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Varies relative to mass..but makes no 'relevant' difference except in Einstein and at speeds approaching Tau 0! GPS merely adjusts for tiny variables in near Earth satellite positioning. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:08 PM (#4160544) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome That is my understanding too, Bill. But I am a Gnome with very little brain! |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:21 PM (#4160545) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman But I am a Gnome with very little brain! quote it is not the size of what you have, but what you do with it as the woman in the afghan coat said to the man in the precognitive trousers |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:31 PM (#4160547) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I absolutely love this from Bill's link: Proof that God exists … (4/5/2002) A George Hammond preparing to discuss his workman named George Hammond has published what he claims is a "Scientific Proof of God". He has done the usual mad scientist things like submit a paper for publication and have it rejected and write to Stephen Hawking and get no answer, thereby proving that the establishment is against him and Professor Hawking is probably not smart enough to understand it. If this was all Mr Hammond did he would be of no interest to The Millenium Project (although he has made an appearance in Quintessence of the Loon). Why he gets a mention here is because of the way he reacts to any comments or criticism. The average mad scientist is impervious to criticism as he (almost invariably a "he") knows he is right and does not bother with lesser minds. Mr Hammond, on the other hand, launches into a vituperative and scatological ad hominem attack on anyone who dares to suggest that there might be even the slightest flaw in his "proof" (he rates it higher than just a "theory"). As an example, when I commented on his remarkable observation that horses have four legs and cars have four wheels, his immediate response was to call me a moron. Mr Hammond reminds me of the "alternative medicine" supporters and anti-vaccination liars who have so little faith in what they say that they either run and hide or resort to abuse when challenged. One or two echoes there of our current exchanges...I won't dwell... ;-) (Mind you, I wish he could spell "millennium..."). :-) |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:33 PM (#4160548) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome You're getting the knack of it Dick! Must be precognition:-D |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:53 PM (#4160549) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I dreamed I was going to do a country dance with a beautiful Dutch girl, and it came true! Preclognition! |
|
28 Dec 22 - 03:57 PM (#4160550) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I remember Dan Krackerman, from Dutch group Mucus, saying he felt like a clog in something turning. But that was after wearing solar flares. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 04:45 PM (#4160553) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Rain Dog I have asked this question of the usual jokers before, do you act in the same way in real life as you do online? By which I mean do you talk in the same way to people face to face as you do when online? |
|
28 Dec 22 - 04:57 PM (#4160554) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Of course not! But my excuse is that I have only Mudcat. I used to do Chiff and I still, rarely, do TheSession, and I play Irish on the harmonica (not bragging, but you've heard worse...). But no Facebook, no Instagram, no TikTok, never. I have a very limited transaction with online socialising. For me, it's just Mudcat. And it's great for an hour or so a day for this 'ere retired old gentleman. I don't believe I'm a lot different in real life but Mrs Steve won't let me rattle on about my bees-in-bonnets anywhere near as much as I do here. And I have no secrets. You all know my real name and that I live near Bude, a small town in north Cornwall. You could track me down in minutes if you wanted to. In fact, I'll put t'kettle on if I know you're around. Anyway, why do you ask? |
|
28 Dec 22 - 05:28 PM (#4160555) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Me? I will explain & debate the same things with friends in person.. when they are willing. I try to follow the rule of "never argue with the obviously ignorant... they will wear you down with sheer loads of nonsense" I have not always followed that rule on Mudcat, because I often feel that my responses are simply leaving alternate theories that *I* am aware of to counter the logical flaws left by others..(such as the aforementioned "Young Earth Creationism" thread). Note, I differentiate between the ignorant and the stupid. Most of those I debate here are NOT stupid. That would be useless. If I could go back in time, realizing what I do now, I'd love to get 'credentials' and write a book and teach a philosophy course on "How to think". "Ve grow too soon old, and too late schmart." |
|
28 Dec 22 - 06:40 PM (#4160561) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Bill could butt dial himself and answer it in the near past. Steve is as pale as an uncolored coloring book that he thought he colored but never had the time. Backwoodsman is running out of wood and time to split this winter. Robo is matic no more. http://mudcat.org/blickifier.cfm violates causation. Time is one of the most powerful influences to Sandman's thoughts, feelings, and actions, yet he is usually totally unaware of the effect of time out. Max has specific attitudes toward time—or time perspective associated with numerous benefits, yet when off line each is associated with even greater costs. Individual attitudes toward time are learned through Donuel's personal experience, yet collectively attitudes toward time influence national destinies. Dave can stand for hours or days in his gnome life. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 06:57 PM (#4160562) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Don.. are you channeling Emily Dickenson and e.e.cummings and the parables of Nostradamus as you create wordplay about us? I have no idea what the process of butt dialing myself involves or I'd be right there in my (your? our?) near past.... except I don't know what the 'it' is I could then answer. I really miss your cartoons about the world... |
|
28 Dec 22 - 07:18 PM (#4160567) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Cartoon: An 800 lbs. couple are on the front porch. "You know honey sometimes I wish KFC hadn't moved in next door". The only time old guys don't feel like they have to pee is when they are peeing. |
|
28 Dec 22 - 08:32 PM (#4160571) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw The 0640 post is just about the most arrogant and self-regarding one I've seen here in a long time. Here we have a chap who has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't only not understand science but who chooses to wrap his ignorance in deliberately obscure and often pseudo-mystical language. That would be fine by me, except that he patronisingly includes far better people than him in his oh-so-delicate excoriations... Gosh, Bill, on your prompt I revisited that creationism thread. Blimey, I'm embarrassed... ;-) |
|
28 Dec 22 - 11:40 PM (#4160580) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie Ah! I have just experienced an epiphany! Those here who are not only certain that there are people who sometimes/often/regularly precog (sic) events and who suspect they are among those people, would please post an upcoming event or happenstance with verifiable constructs, such as dates and participants, sometime in the fairly near future. If the event comes true we will all be convinced - and the case will be closed. Might I add that I personally will be mightily impressed and properly apologetic. Mind you, I need events, dates and participants. Otherwise we could end up with merely logical conclusions. And there are plenty of those. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 03:39 AM (#4160590) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome In answer to Rain Dog's question of 28 Dec 22 - 04:45 PM. I never say anything online that I would not say to anyone's face. Of course it is difficult to tell who you are referring to by the phrase "usual jokers". It would be better if you were more specific or are you so vague in real life too? :-) |
|
29 Dec 22 - 04:40 AM (#4160592) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie "I never say anything online that I would not say to anyone's face."\ Totally off topic- but I've been looking for a place to post this: I have come up with a game changer. When someone challenges you with "Are you calling me a liar??" Just say, "Not to your face!" It baffles them. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 05:14 AM (#4160593) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Lol :-D |
|
29 Dec 22 - 06:09 AM (#4160594) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw "Ah! I have just experienced an epiphany!" But...but...that isn't until 6 Jan...Have you solved the precognition conundrum by turning into a time traveller? And when we reach Jan 6 will you have a déjà vu? Are déjà vus (or is it déjàs vu...) able to be predicted in a precognitive way? God, I'm confused... |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:48 AM (#4160599) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel You still don't get it. Einstein shocked the world by revealing that time can be different for different observers. You have never-attempted to understand the secret of time. As we all know, there is an intimate relationship between time and the entropic age of objects. But what is this relationship? Just as length, width and height are the measurements of physical extensions of objects (their three spatial dimensions); time too, takes up space. In this sense, time seems to be the fourth dimension of objects. The so called passage of time and the arrow of time previously proposed has some leeway and is not just a one dimensional line. The meaning of the much debated conventional concept of time is a myth imo. Time is dimensional with more to it than a cone or a point. (as we all know, the theory of relativity allows it), We, will be witnessing the same future. The only difference will be - your clock will not agree with others. I have spent more time than most folks, thinking deeply about time. To be as simple as I can - "TIME is more than a LINE. (as such there is room for phenomena including the precog experience) PS Steve's denigration of my intellect is a lie but you are free to believe as you will. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 08:32 AM (#4160602) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Einstein's theory of relativity is most often misquoted by those who willfully or otherwise will not look beyond the 'mysterious' concept of time passing differently in different circumstances. There is nothing mysterious about it. It is pure physics and while I do not claim to understand the full implications, I do understand that Einstein did not reject the existence of time. Instead, he rejected the distinction between past, present, and future. As I said earlier, the measurement of time is a man made construct. An object only exists in the past, present or future relative to where you are observing it. His work on relativity made it clear that physics behaves identically despite the abstract ordering of those events. A single event occurring simultaneously in the past, present and future is contradictory so maybe only one of those coordinates is reality. In any case, there is no test for such an event and something for which there is no test and makes zero difference is, most likely, an illusion. But if you don't believe me, ask Albert himself. After all, your take on his theory means that he is still here! |
|
29 Dec 22 - 09:26 AM (#4160604) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel The theory has been tested billions of times each time a GPS signal is corrected by the differences in the clocks on Earth and the satellite clocks away from the mass of the Earth. At any rate if one adopts a field theory of time, the differences in time are usually small. Now for a 'what if', suppose time can get twisted like an electrodynamic field that crosses itself. For a brief moment, larger time discrepancies can occur. It won't be enough to talk to Al but it may be enough for consciousness to get a glimpse. My bets are on predictive talents to be mostly dependent on other factors like deduction. But once in a blue moon... If I had not experienced 3 impossible things according to physics I probably would have not looked deeper into conventional thinking and looked for other explanations over the last 40 years. As for past present and future being an illusion it doesn't matter. The distance and speeds required to bring events 200 years out of simultaneous order are too great for us to achieve. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 09:37 AM (#4160605) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel If we could safely orbit a black hole we would travel to the future relative to Earth time. To travel to the past would require FTL speeds and that AIN'T gonna happen. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 11:18 AM (#4160613) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome The three things are only impossible to the physics you understand, Donuel. Paraphrasing Clarke. Technology (or physics) that we do not understand is indistinguishable from magic. Something unusual happens. Is it something beyond our current knowledge or magic? Apply Occam's razor. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 11:22 AM (#4160614) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome BTW. I do believe in magic. The magic of a sunrise or a flower or a bird or a child. There is more such magic in the world than I can ever hope to see. Looking for more would be a waste. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 12:37 PM (#4160621) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Donuel... there was a movie... perhaps you've seen it...Interstellar which does an entirely too good of a job suggesting that time can be messed with and experienced differently by humans. It throws in the demise of Earth, wormholes, space travel, etc., in ways that seem vaguely possible-- until you look at the many convoluted premises it adopts in order to spin one hell of a yarn! Various sci-fi authors have done the same in print for decades... James Blish, Poul Anderson, Issac Asimov and many others. So far, NO ONE has explained how the amounts of energy needed could be harnessed. You weave sentences that show you have read & thought... but none that clearly address the unresolved issues....and tossing stuff like that at 6:40 at us just hardens the opposition. "To be as simple as I can - "TIME is more than a LINE. (as such there is room for phenomena including the precog experience)" "Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it." Alfred North Whitehead |
|
29 Dec 22 - 12:57 PM (#4160622) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk > BTW. I do believe in magic. So do I, Dave, as shorthand for "I don't understand this": I used to freely discuss the "Magic Event Horizon"[1] around the Physics Dept. Curiously enough, those who actually understand the physics of (eg) a beautiful sunset often find that makes it even more magical. That's humans for you. [1] Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen: The Science of Discworld, notably Chapter 4. Don't skip the foreword. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 01:08 PM (#4160624) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk For completeness: Did that Whitehead quote come before or after Einstein's (oft-misunderstood) "Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler" .... ? |
|
29 Dec 22 - 02:37 PM (#4160634) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I dearly hope that technology approaching magic is within our ability. It is not wise to bet against a new discovery, but I do bet against faster than light. When imagining string theory with extra dimensions that are tiny I imagined one so big we can not see it. In this imagined dimension, there is no distance but there is the quality to be adjacent to every point in space. While this idea is useful for sci fi it has no evidence unless 'spooky action at a distance' has a different quantum explanation for entangled particles. Things that don't fit conventional explanations are the very things that lead to new discoveries. New discoveries can be accidental but they are not linear. They do not come in a logical order but bounce around almost randomly. I can give examples in the development of radio that led to semi-conductors that started as iron filings and led to crystals and finally transistors and chips. BTW I agree with Dave, Bill and Mr. Brainiac as well. Bill I do qualify my remarks but as in music I have the heart but not the technique to be profound. For example I recently abandoned my anti matter annihilation debris hypothesis for dark matter with good reason. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 04:23 PM (#4160642) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I am surprised you guys didn't notice that I practically said "Don't Cross The Streams". |
|
29 Dec 22 - 06:27 PM (#4160651) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Richard Dawkins wrote a great book, ostensibly aimed at younger readers, called The Magic Of Reality. You can call any surprising thing that you don't quite understand "magic." That's grand. But what misuse there is of such a useful word. Somewhere, somehow, there's an explanation for any phenomenon you encounter (I'm not talking about fake phenomena such as ghosts, fairies, God and precognition, by the way). It's down to us to dig and delve and try to find the explanation. We may or may not get there, but the journey is amazing. I think it's great to use the word for the amazing things we see all around us, though deep down we know that nothing is "magic" in the strict sense of that word. Nature is beautiful, diverse and jaw-dropping, but there's nothing in it that isn't vulnerable to explanation using the laws of nature. By all means dig away into mysticism in all its various and dubious guises, but there's more than enough for me in the real world, thanks. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:15 PM (#4160655) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel In support of Steve's pan condemnation of the unreal there is much to see in the tech and investment world which is downright UNREAL. Finance and tech have ignored laws of reality and invest in products that are not real from cryptocurrency to META, surveillance capitalism, and self-driving safe cars. The time of zero interest, low risk and no wars is over. A pandemic didn't help either. Tech stocks will continue to decline. Billionaires ran the economy and their rotten fruits will not be tolerated as people wise up to what is real or unreal. They already are dumping Tesla stock as they have gotten to know the Musk behind the Twitter curtain. However, in no way do I excuse Steve's personal vindictiveness towards me or others. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:16 PM (#4160656) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D The Whitehead quote was gleaned from one of his biographers who remembered the basics of it from conversations with a friend, and has been repeated in various forms. My Master's thesis was to be on Whitehead's metaphysics in "Process and Reality". In it he talks about the difficulty of reducing 'sensa' ("eternal objects") to simple components. Of course, his treatment of the concept(s) is anything but simple. In an essay by W. Mays, in a collection by Ivor Leclerc, Whitehead's notion is compared to Occam's Razor.... thus, the simple form of the quote I have always preferred was NOT a direct quote from a book. I can't right now locate the paperback where the friend commented on the idea, but it's the best I can do. (Gee I hadn't looked into those books for years!) |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:25 PM (#4160657) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Oh.. as to Einstein. He and Whitehead were contemporaries, so I have never dated both 'quotations'. They may have known of each other's formulation...or not. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:32 PM (#4160659) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel MaJoC the Filk -, When I took music theory it did not enhance the magic I sensed in music. It was better than nothing (Tabula Raza) in appreciating the magic in music. |
|
29 Dec 22 - 07:37 PM (#4160660) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Donuel is confused, as ever. He is mixing up vindictiveness with calling out serial bullshit. The latest post is a classic and off-topic example. Are we still talking about precognition or not? |
|
30 Dec 22 - 07:47 AM (#4160692) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel For once Steve is ahead of the curve, obsessive cruelty, hate and war are back in fashion. As he says to Christmas carolers, "shut the F up" |
|
30 Dec 22 - 08:03 AM (#4160693) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw You really are a nasty piece of work, aren't you? |
|
30 Dec 22 - 10:51 AM (#4160703) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D Don.. I like folk music and play & sing... but I am not a *musician*. It is not require to aspire to greatness in order to enjoy. I hope you still play the cello. BTW "Tabula Rasa" is really just the idea of people coming into the world with a "blank skate" google: Showing results for Tabula rasa Search instead for Tabula raza "tabula rasa, (Latin: “scraped tablet”—i.e., “clean slate”) in epistemology (theory of knowledge) and psychology, a supposed condition that empiricists have attributed to the human mind before ideas have been imprinted on it by the reaction of the senses to the external world of objects. {John Locke.} My 101 psychology class was taught by a guy who treated it as gospel. (Look up N.H. Pronko) He designed experiments to 'demonstrate' it.... which were roundly disparaged by most of his contemporaries. He trained pigeons, had a student wear glasses that reversed L&R and up & down.. "See? The mind, properly trained, can be anything!" |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:02 AM (#4160705) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Donuel. Although I often do not understand your posts and have said as much, I do like the occasional whimsy and have viewed your contributions as mainly harmless. However, your accusations of cruelty and hate against Steve are far beyond the the pale. I have methodically gone through this thread and found no cruelty, hate or vindictiveness in any of his posts. Robust responses, yes, but certainly no malice anywhere but in posts by you and Helen. Maybe you need to work on your skills of understanding what is happening in the present before you try to predict the future. Just my opinion of course but I am pretty sure that anyone else reading the thread objectively will draw the same conclusion. You are of course welcome to ignore my views. |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:09 AM (#4160707) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: The Sandman I see this thread as an example of the pointlessness of some internet discussions, entrenched positions, name calling etc. I read this thread objectively and i do not reach the same conclusions as Dave The Gnome |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:20 AM (#4160708) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I must add that I have often said that I think I may speak a different language to some others. It is not a UK/US thing as I found it more with a number of 'catters here in the UK than with those elsewhere. I do however seem to be very in tune with what others, including Steve, are saying. It is not always a political thing either. I can trade insults with many an opposing view on here and still feel that our similarities are greater than our differences. There are others though who I will simply never understand. My fault I'm sure but at nearly 70 I do not have the inclination to waste any time pondering the imponderable! |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:22 AM (#4160709) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome A prime example just happened :-D |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:28 AM (#4160710) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stilly River Sage Dick, if you don't like the thread, don't read it or participate. It's that simple. |
|
30 Dec 22 - 11:34 AM (#4160711) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I've downsized, anything I played on the cello is now done on a large ukulele, except allegro. Approaching something new with a blank slate has advantages and costs. Anyway as I was saying about the unreal, Zuckerberg had this great idea about a META internet which is basically like playing Minecraft in 3D with avatars and accessories which aren't cheap. We all know how successful 3D TV is, we all have them don't we??? I think after billions of dollars Meta will be like 3D TV. 25 year olds and younger will love it. Also folks who like to be cut off from the rest of the world, just don't META google at the pool if you were supposed to watch them. As a society of new monkeys wearing blinder goggles and earphones who see no evil and hear no evil META should be great fun. Just think kids could digitally dissect real humans in 3D. Won't that accelerate education? Well you get the drift. There also is new alternative truth finance and politics. George Santos will sell embellished resume's. |
|
30 Dec 22 - 03:00 PM (#4160730) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw (I think I'll start a thread on a topic we haven't discussed for ages...lessee now...how about "precognition...") Cheers, Dave, by the way! |
|
30 Dec 22 - 03:49 PM (#4160736) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Keep thinking Sober New year |
|
30 Dec 22 - 04:36 PM (#4160740) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome What a wicked thing to wish on anyone! |
|
30 Dec 22 - 06:04 PM (#4160747) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw He's supposed to be a scientist yet he can manage to glean stupidly unwarranted things from what people type on Mudcat. It's worth recalling that he has repeatedly sung the praises of the hallucinogenic substance present in magic mushrooms, illegal in many countries and to varying extents in the US. Not so clever, eh? Explains quite a lot about him really. Probably even about his alleged precognition experiences... |
|
30 Dec 22 - 08:23 PM (#4160756) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel PRE MARITAL SEX IS ILLEGAL IN Indonesia. Yes psilocybin is indeed profound, meaningful, and therapeutic for a lifetime. |
|
30 Dec 22 - 08:39 PM (#4160757) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Of course! Just watch out for the police with sniffer dogs knocking on your door at two in the morning when they've heard that you're off on one of your frequent and insane fantasies we so often see here... |
|
30 Dec 22 - 08:40 PM (#4160758) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Steve should not lie about my bio. I do not have a Ph.D. but then again neither does Bill. Shall we discuss how Steve married for money? |
|
30 Dec 22 - 09:01 PM (#4160760) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I doubt whether you passed your first grade tests (whatever they call them in your colony). You certainly don't know how to communicate, that's for sure. As for marrying for money, I'm a piss-poor socialist. Go to bed. |
|
31 Dec 22 - 05:02 AM (#4160788) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Predictions for 2023 The rich will get richer The poor will get poorer |
|
31 Dec 22 - 07:47 AM (#4160817) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome An exempt from the ramblings of Rev. Bernard Achiuior, a fundamental nut job if ever there was one. "When a man is not born again, his spirit is dead and is controlled by the soul, his soul is subject to his body, and the body takes instructions from the world and Satan. The body of the unbeliever is always in contact with Satan and the world. The body picks signals from the world and send them to the human intellect which interpret the worldly language to the emotions making the will to take decision in line with instructions from the world. He then use the body to implement the decision. Recall that, to the unbeliever, his human spirit is dead: that is the conscience, the intuition and the fellowship. So they are no longer alive to participate in the decision making process. When we said his spirit is dead, we actually means, the spirit is controlled and dominated by the soul." So why, do you ask, have I copied this? (There is worse BTW. Look him up) Well, we cannot disprove any of it. The rest of his ravings are littered with 'facts' that cannot be disproved either. So, working on the basis that if it cannot be disproved, it should be taken seriously then his 'facts' equal the 'fact' that, although unproven, precognition is real! Of course we now get into levels of nonsense which leaves me with the question, "If we believe one unproven fact, then why not all the others?" And if we believe all the others, how hard can it be to accept that if you send me all your money, you will have eternal happiness in the afterlife. :D |
|
31 Dec 22 - 07:49 AM (#4160818) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome Exempt=excerpt |
|
31 Dec 22 - 11:59 AM (#4160842) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D "If we believe one unproven fact, then why not all the others?" A good expression of my favorite logical principle.."ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), Thus, if you have two contradictory premises in your opinions, AT LEAST one of them must be false... and maybe both. Most people never even attempt to look directly at what various of their beliefs imply... |
|
31 Dec 22 - 02:08 PM (#4160851) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel "Any unproven fact". That's an odd impossibility. However, many experiments yield non-deterministic results, which is to be expected in this quantum universe. |
|
31 Dec 22 - 02:40 PM (#4160863) Subject: RE: BS: hair splitting From: Donuel Goethe showed that there are trueisms that can not be proven in math. Geometry has problems without proofs |
|
01 Jan 23 - 06:14 AM (#4160912) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: MaJoC the Filk > Goethe Goedel, surely? and it's slightly worse .... In constructing maths from first principles, once you have a sufficiently wide set of axioms that counting is possible, there are statements you can make* which can be neither proven nor disproven. But rather than glumly saying "this is officially Undecidable", it can be a wonderful release --- [joyous voice] you get to choose: add either "said statement is false" or "said statement is true" to your set of axioms, and see which produces the more interesting mathematics. There'll be something else which is Undecidable waiting out there in the newly-extended maths, but the ride goes on. But you do need the proofs first, both that the statement cannot be proven, and that the statement cannot be disproven, which brings us back to our thread subject. Sadly, the Axiom of Choice applies to set theory, not to real life,** and the hypothesis in question is both hard to prove and hard to disprove; hence the heatedness of the discussion, which IMHO has the trench-warfare nature. * Most notoriously, the Continuum Hypothesis, which involves orders of infinity; but this marg[snip] ** I once asked (as an undergrad) why, in Applied Maths, one uses *this* form of statistics to describe collections of electrons, rather than *that* form. I was told, basically: This is what Nature's telling us to do. |
|
01 Jan 23 - 11:45 AM (#4160932) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Bill D ... also, "truth" is one of the words most commonly subjected to equivocation. |
|
02 Jan 23 - 07:58 AM (#4161020) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I do not need vengeance but I do want justice. I do not need apologies but I do want the truth. I just rarely get truth and when I do I often 'don't get it'. |
|
02 Jan 23 - 05:38 PM (#4161093) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome The truth is that this thread was always destined to go round in circles. It is like arguments about god or the afterlife. Philosophy rather than science. Just what do you feel you need justice, vengeance or apologies for? You opened the can of worms. |
|
02 Jan 23 - 07:03 PM (#4161098) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw He wants truth, sez he, but he deals in half-truths and garbled science all the time. |
|
02 Jan 23 - 08:12 PM (#4161106) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel I say I do not need vengence or apologies but I want justice and truth. Justice for what? Let me count the ways. There is also the famous essay about needs and wants. It is often given to a son or daughter upon going away to college. As I said at the start of this thread that France would win the World cup. Later I acknowledged that my guess is only close but no cigar as usual. |
|
03 Jan 23 - 06:29 AM (#4161131) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome "I say I do not need vengence or apologies but I want justice and truth. Justice for what? Let me count the ways." Sorry Donuel but vengeance and apologies must have been on your mind. Why else mention them? I have given you one indisputable truth about this thread. Which version of the truth do you want and, yes, we need to know what you want justice for before it can be given. |
|
03 Jan 23 - 10:55 AM (#4161156) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Whats hard about things I do not need or want? Or if you want to have a fake row about something, how about idolatry ? |
|
03 Jan 23 - 12:46 PM (#4161168) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome What's hard about "Why else mention them?"? I am not seeking a row. I am looking to avoid one through clarification. Your posts are unclear and ambiguous so unless you can clarify what justice you want, you will never get it. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 06:20 AM (#4161230) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Well "truth" is an excellent word and we shouldn't shy away from using it, with the necessary proviso that it's one of those words that's wide open to personal interpretation. In that notorious creationism thread that Bill mentioned (and which I feel embarrassed about when I read it back!), I had a long spat with The Snail about evolution. I said that evolution is true (and I'll never demur from that). Evolution happens and that can't be denied by anyone employing actual reason. So why can't I say it? He said I shouldn't... What can never be said to be true is evolutionary theory. We've amassed thousands of pieces of evidence from fossils, anatomy, biochemistry, genetics and geography that support the theory, so much that it's now impossible to say that evolution doesn't happen. There's a huge amount about it that we still don't know but there will be no killer blow that could finally see off evolution. The theory is there in order to try to explain the fact of evolution. Our knowledge of the processes therein is always subject to tweaking as we obtain more evidence, but nothing can alter the basic truth that evolution happens. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 10:05 AM (#4161249) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Beauty and understanding is in the mind of the beholder. I see nothing obscure about my words that at times may be poetic but still have meaning for a sincere audience. My wish list for justice is far afield in this thread but is a fair question. Justice is a difficult thing to legislate nationally or globally in a human context so it is more of a list of ideals. As such my idea of justice is manifold; I seek justice for those who put the priority of the well being of collective life before pocketbooks. I want justice for everyone who may have a perspective be it a minority or majority and be free to speak or write it. The third is justice to have a freedom from want so that every nation may have a healthy peacetime for its inhabitants everywhere in the world. Finally a justice to release those chained in fear from authoritarians who threaten or subject people to heinous acts for the benefit of the despot. Addressing the issues of greed, freedom, poverty and fear are the main issues but it goes farther than that in this time of new technology. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 10:10 AM (#4161250) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I suppose there's a fine dividing line between poetry and doggerel. Whether it's in the mind of the beholder is moot. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 10:45 AM (#4161255) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel It would be better to speak to ideas than perpetual obsessive personal rants that make you sound like a poor unfortunate jealous soul. jus sayin. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 11:32 AM (#4161259) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I've spoken to many an idea in this and your brain thread. I also respond to ideas put by other people. Pricking egos occasionally is useful when someone or other starts to get a rather inflated notion of their own talents. Many of your posts are innocent of useful content. Linking without comment to a Fleetwood Mac song for example. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 12:32 PM (#4161271) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Helen Yes, Steve, that is why I challenge you on occasions because you appear to claim that other people are doing exactly what you do yourself: "Pricking egos occasionally is useful when someone or other starts to get a rather inflated notion of their own talents." |
|
04 Jan 23 - 12:37 PM (#4161272) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel What you call pricking egos I call ego pricks, but not in mixed company. I do what I can to silence ego because the ego is a liar. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 01:46 PM (#4161274) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome There you go again, Donuel. Your words do not make sense Pricking ego = an action Ego prick = a person And ego cannot be a liar surely. The person with the ego can be. Trying to be too clever just muddies the water and confuses those of us with different thought patterns. Try working to the lowest common denominator and keep things simple. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 01:48 PM (#4161275) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw I hadn't really noticed that you've ever challenged me, Helen. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 03:40 PM (#4161291) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator is when poetry has an advantage. Media whores are good at dumbing down but I guess I am not good at it from your POV Dave. What do you want justice for Dave? |
|
04 Jan 23 - 03:51 PM (#4161293) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Allow me to remind you of my ideals of justice; My wish list for Justice is a difficult thing to legislate nationally or globally in a human context so it is more of a list of ideals. As such, my idea of justice is manifold; I seek justice for those who put the priority of the well being of collective life before pocketbooks. I want justice for everyone who may have a perspective be it a minority or majority and be free to speak or write it. The third is justice to have a freedom from want so that every nation may have a healthy peacetime for its inhabitants everywhere in the world. Finally a justice to release those chained in fear from authoritarians who threaten or subject people to heinous acts for the benefit of the despot. Addressing the issues of greed, freedom, poverty and fear are the main issues but it goes farther than that in this time of new technology. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 05:13 PM (#4161309) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Ebbie More than for justice, Donuel, perhaps you should be asking for mercy. :@) |
|
04 Jan 23 - 05:32 PM (#4161311) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I have not asked for justice Donuel. That was you! You seem to imply that you wanted justice for something in this thread. Was that just obfuscation again? |
|
04 Jan 23 - 06:27 PM (#4161314) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel As a philosophical topic justice is an interesting study. For example in legal arguments if the claim of one issue of a witness is called into question the entire testimony is tainted. This is similar to Bill's example. The problem with that line of thinking is there have been holocaust deniers who claim an architectural detail of the gas chamber dynamited ruins do not show the blueprint details and must be discounted and unbelieved along with the rest of the claims that the holocaust was real. Then witness testimony is torn apart because perfect memory does not exist. Throwing away all experiential testimony is a foolish thing to do if your aim is to get to the truth. Dave, do gnomes ever sit down when we aren't looking? |
|
04 Jan 23 - 06:32 PM (#4161315) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Witness testimony is great as long as it's independently corroborated. Experiential testimony, whatever that is, may be of passing interest, but without evidence and corroboration it can't jump over the bar. Science is not a dirty word. |
|
04 Jan 23 - 09:50 PM (#4161347) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel For precognition and against precognition But they can't both be correct. Unless on rare occasions when probability wins the argument. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 04:56 AM (#4161355) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Your first link is to a popular science magazine article from twelve years ago. As the magazine has to survive by selling copies, the headline and colourful graphic is appropriately dramatic. Sadly, the content is a damp squib. Your second link tears the meta-analysis to pieces. I could gleefully quote the whole thing, but here's a paragraph that supports what I've been saying all along about the misuse of statistics: "To me this interpretation betrays a deep-seated misapprehension of the scientific method. Statistical inference, regardless of whatever form it takes, only assigns probabilities. It cannot ever prove or disprove a theory. In fact, unlike mathematical theorems, scientific theories are never proven. They can only be supported by evidence and must always be subjected to scientific skepticism. The presentiment meta-analysis (Mossbridge et al., 2012, 2014) illustrates how this process can be misapplied. A significant effect does not confirm psi but it raises many new questions." At least the writer doesn't quite close the door. There are no closed minds but there's a lot of shrugging of shoulders as we wait for some real, honest science. Frankly, supporters of precognition are at point zero. No good evidence, just bad science. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 04:56 AM (#4161356) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Is should be are. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 06:23 AM (#4161364) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel The second law of thermodynamics (causation)is a powerful argument. Only if time has a dimension that has enough breadth could such a thing happen. For it to happen over the course of a decade is even harder to imagine. Perhaps what is wrong with quantum mechanics is a clue. But I admit I dunno based on conventional (still broken/incomplete) science. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 06:42 AM (#4161367) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel If you throw away all experiential observation there would be no disagreement. But you can't without being closed-minded. Refusing to consider alternatives is not scientific either. No wonder the subject is forbidden to a certain mind set. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 06:53 AM (#4161370) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw And what mindset would that be, dear Aunt Sally? I didn't say anything about experiential observation or refusing to consider alternatives now, did I? |
|
05 Jan 23 - 06:59 AM (#4161373) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Gosh, I meant to say throwing out experiential observation. I'm in a rush to change a light bulb (which is absolutely true!!) |
|
05 Jan 23 - 09:48 AM (#4161389) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome How many Stsve's does it take to change a light bulb? Maybe for the joke thread... :-D (BTW, Gnomes don't change light bulbs before you ask) |
|
05 Jan 23 - 04:01 PM (#4161412) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw This one was in an outside light fitting, which had to be dismantled before the bulb could be changed, rather a large number of feet up the wall. Bravely, I managed it... |
|
05 Jan 23 - 07:42 PM (#4161446) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel When I think of intuition I don't think of it in a paranormal sense but rather view it as noticing something more deeply than many other people. If its a kind of alternate intelligence I'm OK with that. People are smarter than me in other ways. Some may call it a subconscious deduction but I settle for intuition. For me intuition seems omnipresent compared to the rare precognition. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 07:51 PM (#4161450) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Your novel view of yourself knows no bounds. Go off and have a nice cup of tea. |
|
05 Jan 23 - 09:14 PM (#4161456) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Ain't life grand. Doing art projects allows my mind to slow way down until time is not a factor. What! it's 5 already? It's like waking but sleeping is gaining an upper hand especially after eating. Knowing yourself and self-reflection is highly recommended. |
|
06 Jan 23 - 08:01 AM (#4161488) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Some witnesses/experiencers are better than others. Meet and listen to America's REAL Top Gun who encountered UFO's. The midpoint to end is about what he saw, the first half is about flight expertise. our real Top Gun |
|
06 Jan 23 - 08:08 PM (#4161551) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Witness isn't evidence unless it's independently corroborated and confirmed by documentary evidence. It matters not a jot that the witness is an amazing member of the forces with a long and spotless record of achievement. I think one of Bill's logical fallacies covers that nicely. You really should know by now how science works. Those UFO-spotters belong in the same category as ghost-aficionados and precognitionists. They fervently wish to stand out from the crowd for some reason, and the only way they can manage it is by making outrageous claims that rational people can't disprove. |
|
07 Jan 23 - 09:28 AM (#4161599) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I don't think it is precognitionists. Probably precognitionators :-D |
|
07 Jan 23 - 09:37 AM (#4161604) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw Precognitionistas? Or even just precognistas? How about precognophiles? I was going to say precognophiliacs, but that sounds too much like a disorder. OK then, precognophiliacs it is... :-) |
|
07 Jan 23 - 11:43 AM (#4161622) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Dave the Gnome I like precognistas :-) |
|
08 Jan 23 - 05:35 PM (#4161760) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Donuel Our Top Gun is a witness since the US Navy has independently corroborated and confirmed the encounter with six different measuring devices and has documented the evidence and released some of the multiple encounters to the public. It matters not a jot that the witness can conclude who the pilot of the craft may be but it is an amazing confirmation by Naval forces with a long and spotless record of achievement. We really should know by now how Steve ignores the truth and lies. Anyone who routinely dehumanizes members and denies the holocaust should not be trusted. |
|
08 Jan 23 - 06:01 PM (#4161764) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw If you are saying that I deny the Holocaust, please have the courage (that would be a change...) to say it in words of one syllable so that I can seek to have you removed from this forum. |
|
08 Jan 23 - 07:15 PM (#4161773) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Steve Shaw And at least I can show respect by calling it the Holocaust, not "the holocaust." Sheesh. |
|
09 Jan 23 - 01:25 PM (#4161887) Subject: RE: BS: Precognition From: Stilly River Sage Are we doxxing people now, Ebbie? Time to end this thread, I think. |
