Precognitive detection experiments or feeling the future

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 going just 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.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I disagree with the "love porn" thing, just because it's normal to have a reaction to reproductive organs flashing doesn't mean you love it.
But the important part is fascinating, I would guess if you look at everything as field (information is the consciousness wave-peak/particle) and interacting systems it's not really surprising

a reply to: Peeple

I guess "love" is too strong of a word. What is important here is people have a reaction to porn regardless of their feelings about the morality of porn.

Another interesting facet to these experiments is the Cornell professors asked the participates if they were gay. This is because the experiments would only work with the gay participates when they showed gay porn. You can come to a very controversial conclusion in that you could test to see if someone is gay or not by these experiments.

This kind of proves the heart wants what the heart wants.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The gaydar is real!


I wonder if that would also work with audio? Breastfeeding mothers start lactating when they hear babies cry, maybe that's also a bit precognitive?

a reply to: Peeple

Yes. In the video they talk about how having precognition would be helpful in saving a baby in the wild. And that this would be an evolutionary advantage.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Sorry didn't watch the video, I'm mobile and can't.
How would a gay guy feeling some arousal is ahead save a baby?

a reply to: Peeple

I don't know how it works. I'm just a reporter here. I thought the experiment itself is just fascinating. I'm just astounded by the 5 second results. Five seconds is a long time!

a reply to: Peeple

I wonder if that would also work with audio? Breastfeeding mothers start lactating when they hear babies cry, maybe that's also a bit precognitive?

No I think that is a little different, it is a response to a sound.
Precognition is doing it before the baby cried.

Precognition to me has always had a bad or impending doom slant.

Daryl Bem's work is highly contested, but very interesting nonetheless.

it basically consisted of a word list, words flashing on the screen, the definitions and trying to guess which word was going to come up. I can't remember the exact experiment but what's key is that there was something like 51% guesses correct on a 50/50 chance. It created ripples in psychology, like what is considered signicant and what isnt. Is .01 enough to prove anything beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

If you google Daryl Bem's feeling the future his papers will come up. They are interesting. Maybe someone can give a better description than me. I am being lazy.

originally posted by: Attentionwandered
Daryl Bem's work is highly contested, but very interesting nonetheless.

it basically consisted of a word list, words flashing on the screen, the definitions and trying to guess which word was going to come up. I can't remember the exact experiment but what's key is that there was something like 51% guesses correct on a 50/50 chance. It created ripples in psychology, like what is considered signicant and what isnt. Is .01 enough to prove anything beyond 'reasonable doubt'.

.

I think it has more to do with repeat-ability than a specific value. If the tests continually showed 51%, then I think there is a very high likelihood that the test has some error or there is in fact some kind of precognition effect. The same holds even with 0.01% too.