It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Although PAA may seem like a sensory counterpart to the predictive coding observed in the motor system, it differs in terms of the order of events and by not involving inferred events or making a decision. In PAA experiments, the physiological and stimulus events are in the wrong order to be explained causally, and they are time-stamped by a computer (not subjectively reported by research participants). Regardless of the absolute times when these events occur, a physiological reaction occurs before the stimulus to which it seems to be linked. Thus PAA neither supports nor refutes the delayed conscious experience hypothesis, but this hypothesis is not a viable explanation for PAA.
A metaphor may help to provide an intuitive feel for this effect – watching a river move past a stick. The metaphor works as follows: Imagine that the direction of the water’s current is the conscious experience of the flow of time (temporal flow), and imagine that an intrusion in the flow (the stick) is an emotional, arousing, or otherwise important event. The largest disturbance in the water made by the intrusion is downstream (in the “forward” time direction), which is analogous to our conscious reaction to experiencing the important event. But if one examines the flow of water near the stick, one will also see a small perturbation upstream, anticipating the intrusion in the water downstream due to the back pressure. Similar to PAA, this upstream perturbation is a hint of things to come. It is not normally part of our conscious awareness and, as with disturbances in a flow of water, the majority of the effect of an intrusion is downstream of the intrusion.
originally posted by: sourcecontroller
a reply to: Astyanax There is a technology in development by some DOD contractors I know of that uses this ability to speed up targeting response. The human brain can perceive potential targets faster than the machines can but the electronics can detect this recognition and relay the perception to targeting controls faster than the body can respond to these same brain triggered signals. This augmentation for targeting is of keen interest by DOD for the development of machine assisted targeting in weapons systems.
originally posted by: LeatherNLace
Research Suggests We Unconsciously React to Events Up to 10 Seconds Before They Happen
What is missing from this title? The word Credible.
If the title read: Credible Research Suggests We Unconsciously React to Events Up to 10 Seconds Before They Happen
I read the article and saw nothing credible about it.
Like the poster said above, if this were true, then we would not have traffic accidents...or any accidents for that matter.
originally posted by: LeviWardrobe
a reply to: bitsforbytesWhat you describe is called confirmation bias, and it's one of the first things that is looked for in studies like this...
originally posted by: charlyv
If we believe in the multiverse theories, perhaps what ever is about to happen causes a shift into another parallel universe.
If that universe were say a few seconds behind, you get this instant "deja-vu"?