• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Precognitive detection experiments or feeling the future

dfnj

Well-Known Member
I was watching a video of Joe Rogan interviewing Rupert Sheldrake. And Sheldrake started talking about some experiments being done by a Cornell professor with regards to precognition. I found it fascinating.

The way the experiment was done is participates are connected to a lie detector device. The participates are then shown a sequence of pictures. Most pictures are ordinary. But some pictures are showing hardcore pornography. People participating in the experiments have an uncontrollable reaction to the pornographic image. People just love porn whether they admit it or not.

The amazing thing about these experiments is the lie detector starts measuring an emotion response FIVE SECONDS before the picture is shown. And even more amazing the computer picks the picture at random and the next picture is NOT chosen until milliseconds before it is shown.

I imagine most staunch philosophical materialists are just going to assume this is pure BS because it violates their own personal dogma. The thing is these experiments are using well accepted methods of analysis and are showing unequivocal and repeatable results well above random guessing. The science is telling us something whether we like it or not.

Here's a presentation by professor Bem. He starts talking about these experiments at the 19:35 mark (19th minute 35th second).


Here's the original video I was watching. Rupert Sheldrake explains the future feeling experiments in better detail start 2:16:30 mark (2 hour, 16th minute, 30th second):


Another interesting bit in the video above the 2:21 mark (2 hour, 21st minute) where Sheldrake talks about tennis players reacting to a 90 mph tennis ball serve is interesting.

Daryl Bem's works is based on Dean Radin's work. Here's a presentation of Dean Radin's work.

 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I know from one extraordinary experience with it that precognition is a real experience. Your pseudo-skeptic links are of no interest to me.

You mean fiddling with statistics is fine - as long as one gets the right result?
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
I know from one extraordinary experience with it that precognition is a real experience. Your pseudo-skeptic links are of no interest to me.

And the same seems to apply to why many become religious - but not you apparently? Perhaps this is why I am so skeptical of such individual experiences - it being a bit variable as to what one comes away with.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I imagine most staunch philosophical materialists are just going to assume this is pure BS because it violates their own personal dogma. The thing is these experiments are using well accepted methods of analysis and are showing unequivocal and repeatable results well above random guessing. The science is telling us something whether we like it or not.
It might be BS and it might not. I personally strongly believe in science, but the thing we call "time" is something very strange. All other dimensions can move in all directions, except time. Some scientists even suggest that all events in all time exist concurrent, and it's only our experience that moves in one direction, so in my personal view, maybe there's a chance we can sense or have some shadows of reversed time experience, i.e. future events. I know it's all out there in the far field to the left and in crazy town, but I don't think science should discard the possibility of reversed time or experience. Well, that's my little crazy rant. :)

(Besides, I've had some precognitions myself in my life, which is why I'm not too skeptical about the possibility.)
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
You're cynical about precognition but not cynical about peer reviews?

Peer reviews are by their nature indipendent reviews by peers, if an experiment cannot stand up to peer review then the fault is with the experiment.

That is not saying peer review is perfect, but it is shown to work. To date the same cannot be said of precognition.

Which is why we made my statement. If the experiment can be repeated using the same conditions and returning the same results then what is the problem?

If, using the same conditions the results cannot be repeated then you have a problem and need to either ditch the experiment or modify it to take account of its failings.

So how is honest evaluation in any way being cynical?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Peer reviews are by their nature indipendent reviews by peers, if an experiment cannot stand up to peer review then the fault is with the experiment.

That is not saying peer review is perfect, but it is shown to work. To date the same cannot be said of precognition.

Which is why we made my statement. If the experiment can be repeated using the same conditions and returning the same results then what is the problem?

If, using the same conditions the results cannot be repeated then you have a problem and need to either ditch the experiment or modify it to take account of its failings.

So how is honest evaluation in any way being cynical?
As if 'peers' are not humans with their own biases/preferences/prejudices on controversial subjects.

And we don't even know if 'peers' did or did not review the experiments discussed in the OP.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
I was watching a video of Joe Rogan interviewing Rupert Sheldrake. And Sheldrake started talking about some experiments being done by a Cornell professor with regards to precognition. I found it fascinating.

The way the experiment was done is participates are connected to a lie detector device. The participates are then shown a sequence of pictures. Most pictures are ordinary. But some pictures are showing hardcore pornography. People participating in the experiments have an uncontrollable reaction to the pornographic image. People just love porn whether they admit it or not.

The amazing thing about these experiments is the lie detector starts measuring an emotion response FIVE SECONDS before the picture is shown. And even more amazing the computer picks the picture at random and the next picture is NOT chosen until milliseconds before it is shown.

I imagine most staunch philosophical materialists are just going to assume this is pure BS because it violates their own personal dogma. The thing is these experiments are using well accepted methods of analysis and are showing unequivocal and repeatable results well above random guessing. The science is telling us something whether we like it or not.

Here's a presentation by professor Bem. He starts talking about these experiments at the 19:35 mark (19th minute 35th second).


Here's the original video I was watching. Rupert Sheldrake explains the future feeling experiments in better detail start 2:16:30 mark (2 hour, 16th minute, 30th second):


Another interesting bit in the video above the 2:21 mark (2 hour, 21st minute) where Sheldrake talks about tennis players reacting to a 90 mph tennis ball serve is interesting.

Daryl Bem's works is based on Dean Radin's work. Here's a presentation of Dean Radin's work.


Am I the first one to state, on this topic, that precognition isn't inherently contradictory with philosophical materialism/physicalism ?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As if 'peers' are not humans with their own biases/preferences/prejudices on controversial subjects.

And we don't even know if 'peers' did or did not review the experiments discussed in the OP.

So what you want is non human reviews of experiments, cool. And maybe only the ones you want get past.


As i said, i look forward to the peer reviews that were not included
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Peer reviews are by their nature indipendent reviews by peers, if an experiment cannot stand up to peer review then the fault is with the experiment.

That is not saying peer review is perfect, but it is shown to work. To date the same cannot be said of precognition.

Which is why we made my statement. If the experiment can be repeated using the same conditions and returning the same results then what is the problem?

If, using the same conditions the results cannot be repeated then you have a problem and need to either ditch the experiment or modify it to take account of its failings.

So how is honest evaluation in any way being cynical?

"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review…"

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
"So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review…"

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

As you quoted, there is no obvious alternative

Its the we have got. And the fact that it is full of easily identified defects means what? That the defects are easily identified and where required accounted for.

So come up with a solution or accept what has worked since the modern scientific method was developed until a more robust solution can be found
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
As you quoted, there is no obvious alternative

Its the we have got. And the fact that it is full of easily identified defects means what? That the defects are easily identified and where required accounted for.

So come up with a solution or accept what has worked since the modern scientific method was developed until a more robust solution can be found
My point was that you have no more reason to trust the peer review process than you do the PSI science you doubted.

I don't have a link to offer but I recall a meta-analysis that found that more than half of the peer reviewed studies failed to replicate.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
My point was that you have no more reason to trust the peer review process than you do the PSI science you doubted.

I don't have a link to offer but I recall a meta-analysis that found that more than half of the peer reviewed studies failed to replicate.

Show me where i doubted, i simply asked to see the peer reviews, it seems such a request is shocking to some for whatever reason

Sure peer reviews fail to replicate, and then the original hypothesis is either dumped or modify then re offered for peer review.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So what you want is non human reviews of experiments, cool. And maybe only the ones you want get past.


As i said, i look forward to the peer reviews that were not included
What I’m saying is in the end it will still always come down to each person’s judgment of the facts and people’s motives.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Show me where i doubted, i simply asked to see the peer reviews, it seems such a request is shocking to some for whatever reason
Oh, you mean you weren't sarcastically offering your opinion that the PSI research in the OP wouldn't hold up under the trustworthy peer review process of recognized scientific journals?

My mistake. I misunderstood.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Oh, you mean you weren't sarcastically offering your opinion that the PSI research in the OP wouldn't hold up under the trustworthy peer review process of recognized scientific journals?

My mistake. I misunderstood.

Oh i mean read my post #2 on this thread, why do you consider it sarcastic?

If the experiment does not hold up then tough, re-evaluate the hypothesis, if it does hold up then it deserves further research.

Why are people so paranoid that they think their pet like is being attacked by honesty?
 
Top