Precognition- What is your take on it?

[VillagePlank]

P3,

I think you missed my point. To clarify, I'll use someone elses words . . .

No (current) mathematical model of any natural process "includes any distinction between past and future. Even today, for many physicists it is a matter of faith that as far as the fundamental description of nature is concerned, there is no arrow of time" (1)

"Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict; hence the paradox." (2)

"We shall see that nearly everywhere the physicist has purged from his science the use of one-way time . . . alien to the ideals of physics" (3)

(1) Ilya Prigogine, The End of Certainty

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox

(3) Gilbert N. Lewis, Science 71 (1930):570

[Gray-Wolf]

I feel that maybe some peoples scientific drives are bourne from a deep seated personal insecurity and so their need to know is so they can 'understand all' (illusion of control) and therefore feel safe in a place of no surprises.

If you 'pull away the rug' from under the 'understanding' they have they can react in some perculiar ways.

Others are driven by curiosity alone.

To borrow from Ecconomics 'all other things being equal' should prefix all scientific 'understandings' and we should see any 'advances' in scientific understanding as added steps on an infinate ladder ( this is my theory, a theory which is mine).

[VillagePlank]

eh?

[parmenides3]

G-W; I have looked outside the box. Please don't think I'm dismissing anything here, merely posing a couple of thoughts which people might want to consider. I'm not averse to some aspects of parapsychology, but won't be naive about them, either. The human mind is a strange and wonderful place.

V-P: I am not convinced that Loschmidt's paradox is a paradox at all. It is all very well saying that 'it should not be possible', but this first implies that one wishes it to be possible, then that it is necessary to de so, neither of which need be the case. As the quote says, the time-symmetry of sub-atomic particles and the irreversibility of macroscopic entities seem to be in conflict, but why? They are in conflict only if you accept his principle in the first place. As far as I can tell, there is no logical contradiction implicit in both observations being the case, and therefore no real paradox.

That physicists find time a problem is not a novel idea to me, but none of your quotes addresses the fundamental concept of time (which is, in the end, only meaningful insofar as it is a human convention) as a dimension of existence.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Well, I think you're wrong, P3; entirely wrong. Time is certainly not just a human construct used for identifying position in a dimensional lattice. This sort of thinking takes us back to Principia Mathematica where Leibniz argued with Newton that the existence of space was only to describe motion and position.

Edited February 14, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

I've been expecting this thread for some time

[Gray-Wolf]

I've been expecting this thread for some time

LOL.

[Roger J Smith]

I think when you consider the sheer number of predictive thoughts any one person might have in a lifetime, and how few of these actually verify, the phenomenon would have to be seen as part of the random scatter of possibility since some of these thoughts would be bound to verify at random.

I do believe in the existence of a spiritual dimension which some would call the religious dimension, and within that one might receive precognition either as a warning or as a guide. But that would essentially be coming into the human mind from some external source already familiar with possible outcomes.

Clearly the people who program the GFS have no precognitive ability, unless it is for some alternate earth.

[androcles]

I am a newbie Netweather and I have just 'stumbled' upon this thread.

I have found this conversation between a wolf and an orang. Oh! And a really scary looking dead cold hand which interjects occasionally.

I don't really understand the drift of the talk, but it is very obvious from the ongoing discussion that they do. Go for it, guys!

God! I love Netweather.tv What an education

Andy

I think when you consider the sheer number of predictive thoughts any one person might have in a lifetime, and how few of these actually verify, the phenomenon would have to be seen as part of the random scatter of possibility since some of these thoughts would be bound to verify at random.

I do believe in the existence of a spiritual dimension which some would call the religious dimension, and within that one might receive precognition either as a warning or as a guide. But that would essentially be coming into the human mind from some external source already familiar with possible outcomes.

Clearly the people who program the GFS have no precognitive ability, unless it is for some alternate earth.

[Gray-Wolf]

I am a newbie Netweather and I have just 'stumbled' upon this thread.

I have found this conversation between a wolf and an orang. Oh! And a really scary looking dead cold hand which interjects occasionally.

I don't really understand the drift of the talk, but it is very obvious from the ongoing discussion that they do. Go for it, guys!

God! I love Netweather.tv What an education

Andy

As I said to the 'spooky hand' some folk may want to come onboard but be intimidated by some of the contents/language. I'm sure it's not 'Badgered' yet..........though now I've said that I have a strange sense of De-javu

[androcles]

Mr Wolf.

Do you not mean deja vu?

[Gray-Wolf]

Mr Wolf.

Do you not mean deja vu?

errm, yes

[androcles]

Mr Wolf.

What now, do you have a deja-vu about?

.....and has it happened yet?

[Claudia]

When we learn to do something eg driving we need to concentrate, the more we do the activity the more it becomes engrained on the brain and results in the ability to do this subconsciously (without thinking which is how you can drive somewhere and remember how you got there) When we have reached this level of thought our brain can subconsciously pick up on changes while our conscious brain does not know what the problem is we only realize an uneasy feeling, premonition or whatever that persons belief may be. Apparently if you have this happen and take yourself back to the event it is possible to make yourself aware of what your subconscious realized. Theres a quite nice book its told in story form which is a bit of a let down but has lots of examples its Blink (the power of thinking without thinking) by Malcolm Gladwell.

I have only had time to read the first page so if any ones suggested this already sorry.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Claudia!

The sub and unconscious use most of the energy consumed by the brain and yet ,because they are what they say on the tin, many people neglect them as part of 'them'.

Begginers luck is a fine example of what people can do without 'training'. As soon as people 'try' and do the thing again then they find that they are hopeless and spend time and effort to return to the 'quality' of their first attempt.

I feel that it is because they do not conciously know what they should be doing on try 1 ,only the basics, so let their body 'take over' on autopilot.... and man our bodies are clever!

When we are in an accident time appears to dilate. The 'slowing' is percieved because we are suddenly aware of all the information at our disposal and if our brain's doing twice as much time appears to slow to half speed. Most of the time we remain unaware of our own senses. The police will use hypnotism to aid witnesses better recall of an event suggesting that ,though we don't 'witness' the info, the info is saved. Every single moment of life! pitty concious recall (memory) is so naff! If you need to remember something set the programme running and get on with something else (distract the cage of chattering monkeys). Hey presto! the memory surfaces.

[VillagePlank]

As I said to the 'spooky hand' some folk may want to come onboard but be intimidated by some of the contents/language. I'm sure it's not 'Badgered' yet..........though now I've said that I have a strange sense of De-javu

I thought we'd done the linguistic bit already?

And there's nothing spooky about my hand, either

[jacksdad]

I thought we'd done the linguistic bit already?

And there's nothing spooky about my hand, either

I new you were going to say that .......and i can guess your reply too

[Claudia]

We have the subconscious because the brain takes in so much stimuli that it cant not cope with it all consciously this does not mean we are not completely unaware of the processes that goes on when it is important such as when we need the fight and fight.

Don’t worry I will catch up with all the other pages now. I hope you have a lot of psychology debates!

[Methuselah]

My take on precognition is simple: it doesn't exist (Or, at least, no-one's ever produced any foolproof evidence suggesting that it does.)...Chance events, unusual-seeming sequences and coincidences do, though?

[Gray-Wolf]

My take on precognition is simple: it doesn't exist (Or, at least, no-one's ever produced any foolproof evidence suggesting that it does.)...Chance events, unusual-seeming sequences and coincidences do, though?

So the Experimentation I outlined means nothing? Yes I concede it isn't perfect but any move towards perfection (by removing the current 'methodology' of random number generation) seem more asthetic than useful.

Out of interest how would you explain the evidence the experiment produces?

[parmenides3]

I'm still struggling with the underlying language/logic of the whole concept, here. For example, I note that the very first post refers to 'realities not yet in the present'; this rings alarm-bells. It could take ages to unpack this phrase alone, especially if you don't want it to involve a simple contradiction; surely, a 'reality' that 'is not yet' is NOT a reality at all, merely a possibility. I believe immanence is a necessary condition of saying of anything that it is real.

Stepping away from the minefield of language and definition for a moment, it seems that what we are looking for is something 'stronger' than anticipation/expectation, but not necessarily as 'strong' as out-and-out fatalism; is this a fair assumption?

I've looked at a couple of Parapsychology papers and haven't been overly excited by them; there is a bit too much speculation and analogy, and not enough hard evidence, to support most of the claims being made. On the other hand, I have direct, first-hand and second-hand experience of 'perceptions' which don't fit easily into simple, logical explanation. An example of this would be my mother claiming that she dreamed about my father covered in blood, the day before he died (covered in blood). Other examples would be me arriving in a completely new place and 'recognising' it in great details (a peculiar experience which is hard to pin down rationally). On the other hand, I certainly didn't foresee the green BMW which mounted the pavement in front of me last Summer, hit a six-year old child, and swerved away about six feet from me (BTW, the child was, miraculously, not killed or seriously injured).

I do not believe that any of my personal experiences, or those told me by others, implies a fixed future; to me, this is a logical impossibility. I also don't really think that it can be possible to 'see into the future' unless the future is already determined. Therefore, for me, there needs to be an alternative explanation. On the other hand, I also tend towards the view that the human 'mind' is a complex and poorly understood thing, which quite plausibly has untapped resources for us if we can 'bring them out'.

Nuff for now,

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

It is a very 'peculiar' proposal as it makes no sense in the world as we understand it currently. Whether a provable occurrence or not it has seemingly been part of the 'human condition' for many thousand of years in both experience and 'tales' (Joseph and his famine/plenty explanations for Pharaoh/ Odin's protection of Baldur etc.) So if only a grain of truth was in it it would overturn the universe and our part in it as we currently appreciate it.

[parmenides3]

Don't get me started on pre-rational belief-systems, please...

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Don't get me started on pre-rational belief-systems, please...

P

Ooopsie....we'll not go there then!

[VillagePlank]

Don't get me started on pre-rational belief-systems, please...

:)P

Oh no. Please feel free to cogitate openly . . . .