Bizzare - and if you believe it, most think you are a crackpot

nitro · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from trendlover:

So if this could be possible to know the future seconds before, and then a person act to change their behavior for a better outcome, ok, then you have changed the future. So if 2 people both are going to the same destination in the future that is dangerous, and each changes the future by their acting differently, how do they know their future will be changed the way they thought they could change it, if more than one behavior of the future is changed?
More...

That is well thought out objection. In the case of "premonitions", it is hard to believe that only the events themselves are "the future seen", and not the people involved in that future. It is possible though that no future was changed, just the people that interacted with that future. Seems hackish, but I can imagine why it could be.

In the case of people seeing a few seconds into their own future, that is more complicated because the person is seeing a future of himself, then affecting that future by taking present action. What was it that he saw then since that future never came to be? This is also possible if you believe in the Many Worlds interpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

nitro

trendlover · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from nitro:

That is well thought out objection. It is hard to believe that only the events themselves are "the future seen", and not the people involved in that future. It is possible though that no future was changed, just the people that interacted with that future.

Seems hackish, but I can imagine why it could be.

nitro
More...

For example, if a person will not go on an airplane they reserved because of an intuition (see the future) so they stay home. And the plane crashes, all die. So they changed their future, they live. But what if the pilot had the same intuition of the future as the passenger? So the pilot has intuition (future looking) and has mechanics look over the plane again. And mechanics find a problem, and fix the problem. So now the future plane ride is safe because of intuition of the pilot, but the passenger cancelled his trip for no reason. So it would be a question of the timing of intuitions.

I opened your link. My head is spinning Very advanced reading for me, but I will read again.

olias · Sep 8, 2008

I think the whole experiment is a big waste of human time and effort. Knowing how other 'psychic' studies are conducted, it's real easy to shoot holes in the whole thing.

My suggestion is not to waste time trying to wrap your mind around the implications of such a phenomenon.

I'm not close-minded, but I do listen to contrasting ideas and usually my logic leads me overwhelmingly to take the side of the skeptics.

trendlover · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from olias:

I think the whole experiment is a big waste of human time and effort. Knowing how other 'psychic' studies are conducted, it's real easy to shoot holes in the whole thing.

My suggestion is not to waste time trying to wrap your mind around the implications of such a phenomenon.

I'm not close-minded, but I do listen to contrasting ideas and usually my logic leads me overwhelmingly to take the side of the skeptics.
More...

I see it different. I do not know if it is possible to be true. But IF it is possible, it is good to imagine what could be.

Cesko · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from olias:

I think the whole experiment is a big waste of human time and effort. Knowing how other 'psychic' studies are conducted, it's real easy to shoot holes in the whole thing.

My suggestion is not to waste time trying to wrap your mind around the implications of such a phenomenon.

I'm not close-minded, but I do listen to contrasting ideas and usually my logic leads me overwhelmingly to take the side of the skeptics.
More...

I had few premonition dreams in my life and it had absolutely nothing to do with sweat glands or logic or anything else.

Daal · Sep 8, 2008

I would be cautious about the 'evidence' of those things 'working'. 1. people like the excitement of paranormal and marvelous possibilities 2. a high number of 'unexplainable' events turns out were easly explained when presented to magicians and other street smart observers(like james randi)
convincing yourself that people can see the future is trying to convience yourself you are looking at the black swan, dont be surprised if you are wrong

trendlover · Sep 8, 2008

No proof that it is possible, that is true. But IF it were possible, than it is something to imagine the effects on life. Thats all.
I think its more like the "Pull the trigger" effect on traders, then black swan that daal is speaking about.

Pa(b)st Prime · Sep 8, 2008

Interesting that your post has been uncommented upon. One of the few really decent, thought provoking things I've read here in ages. I'm grateful nutmeg.

Quote from nutmeg:

Imagine that I asked you to a play a very simple gambling game. In front of you, are four decks of cards--two red and two blue. Each card in those four decks either wins you a sum of money or costs you some money, and your job is to turn over cards from any of the decks, one at a time, in such a way that maximizes your winnings. What you don't know at the beginning, however, is that the red decks are a minefield. The rewards are high, but when you lose on red, you lose a lot. You can really only win by taking cards from the blue decks, which offer a nice, steady diet of $50 and $100 payoffs. The question is: how long will it take you to figure this out?

A group of scientists at the University of Iowa did this experiment a few years ago, and what they found is that after we've turned over about fifty cards, most of us start to develop a hunch about what's going on. We don't know why we prefer the blue decks. But we're pretty sure, at that point, that they are a better bet. After turning over about eighty cards, most of us have figured the game out, and can explain exactly why the first two decks are such a bad idea. This much is straightforward. We have some experiences. We think them through. We develop a theory, and then finally we put two and two together. That's the way learning works. But the Iowa scientists did something else, and this is where the strange part of the experiment begins. They hooked each gambler up to a polygraph--a lie detector machine--that measured the activity of the sweat glands that all of us have below the skin in the palms of our hands. Most sweat glands respond to temperature. But those in our palms open up in response to stress--which is why we get clammy hands when we are nervous. What the Iowa scientists found is that gamblers started generating stress responses to red decks by the tenth card, forty cards before they were able to say that they had a hunch about what was wrong with those two decks. More importantly, right around the time their palms started sweating, their behavior began to change as well. They started favoring the good decks, and taking fewer and fewer cards from A and B. In other words, the gamblers figured the game out before they figured the game out: they began making the necessary adjustments long before they were consciously aware of what adjustments they were supposed to be making.

The Iowa study is just an experiment, of course, a simple card game involving a handful of subjects and a polygraph machine. But it's a very powerful illustration of the way our minds work. Here is a situation where the stakes were high, where things were moving quickly, and where the participants had to make sense of a lot of new and confusing information in a very short time--and what does the Iowa experiment tell us? That in those moments our brain uses two very different strategies to make sense of the situation. The first is the one we're most familiar with. It's the conscious strategy. We think about what we've learned, and eventually come up with an answer. This strategy is logical and definitive. But it takes us eighty cards to get there. It's slow. It needs a lot of information. There's a second strategy, though. It operates a lot more quickly. It starts to kick in after ten cards, and it's really smart because it picks up the problem with the red decks almost immediately. It has the drawback, however, that it operates--at least at first--entirely below the surface of consciousness. It sends its messages through weirdly indirect channels, like the sweat glands on the palms of our hands. It's a system in which our brain reaches conclusions without immediately telling us that it's reaching conclusions.
More...

killthesunshine · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from nutmeg:

Imagine that I asked you to a play a very simple gambling game. In front of you, are four decks of cards--two red and two blue. Each card in those four decks either wins you a sum of money or costs you some money, and your job is to turn over cards from any of the decks, one at a time, in such a way that maximizes your winnings. What you don't know at the beginning, however, is that the red decks are a minefield. The rewards are high, but when you lose on red, you lose a lot. You can really only win by taking cards from the blue decks, which offer a nice, steady diet of $50 and $100 payoffs. The question is: how long will it take you to figure this out?

A group of scientists at the University of Iowa did this experiment a few years ago, and what they found is that after we've turned over about fifty cards, most of us start to develop a hunch about what's going on. We don't know why we prefer the blue decks. But we're pretty sure, at that point, that they are a better bet. After turning over about eighty cards, most of us have figured the game out, and can explain exactly why the first two decks are such a bad idea. This much is straightforward. We have some experiences. We think them through. We develop a theory, and then finally we put two and two together. That's the way learning works. But the Iowa scientists did something else, and this is where the strange part of the experiment begins. They hooked each gambler up to a polygraph--a lie detector machine--that measured the activity of the sweat glands that all of us have below the skin in the palms of our hands. Most sweat glands respond to temperature. But those in our palms open up in response to stress--which is why we get clammy hands when we are nervous. What the Iowa scientists found is that gamblers started generating stress responses to red decks by the tenth card, forty cards before they were able to say that they had a hunch about what was wrong with those two decks. More importantly, right around the time their palms started sweating, their behavior began to change as well. They started favoring the good decks, and taking fewer and fewer cards from A and B. In other words, the gamblers figured the game out before they figured the game out: they began making the necessary adjustments long before they were consciously aware of what adjustments they were supposed to be making.

The Iowa study is just an experiment, of course, a simple card game involving a handful of subjects and a polygraph machine. But it's a very powerful illustration of the way our minds work. Here is a situation where the stakes were high, where things were moving quickly, and where the participants had to make sense of a lot of new and confusing information in a very short time--and what does the Iowa experiment tell us? That in those moments our brain uses two very different strategies to make sense of the situation. The first is the one we're most familiar with. It's the conscious strategy. We think about what we've learned, and eventually come up with an answer. This strategy is logical and definitive. But it takes us eighty cards to get there. It's slow. It needs a lot of information. There's a second strategy, though. It operates a lot more quickly. It starts to kick in after ten cards, and it's really smart because it picks up the problem with the red decks almost immediately. It has the drawback, however, that it operates--at least at first--entirely below the surface of consciousness. It sends its messages through weirdly indirect channels, like the sweat glands on the palms of our hands. It's a system in which our brain reaches conclusions without immediately telling us that it's reaching conclusions.
More...

Total BS.

Only picking from the red decks got you slapped. After a few slaps your mind begins to associate "red" with "slap ". Choosing Red creates stress.

Simple as that.

Associations can form between anything. They are more often wrong than right.

Pa(b)st Prime · Sep 8, 2008

Quote from killthesunshine:

Total BS.

Only picking from the red decks got you slapped. After a few slaps your mind begins to associate "red" with "slap ". Choosing Red creates stress.

Simple as that.

Associations can form between anything. They are more often wrong than right.
More...

I don't think his post was saying much different other than one will intuitively notice preponderance quicker than a filter does.

You of course make a good point that association doesn't foretell future outcomes.

By the same token I'm a bit surprised that the gambler class didn't fade their intuition and continue longer with blue.