Scientific evidence for precognition? Bem publishes follow up to "Feeling the future"

a reply to: GetHyped

Yea it's super weak, especially considering the opposite has more likelihood of having merit. That being a single chump really wanted this to be so his "positivity" influenced the results that nobody else could replicate. People believe what they want to, but fortunately science doesn't rely on belief.

a reply to: GetHyped

read above... i posted evidence showing our minds can influence reality, and that would include experiments...

a reply to: pl3bscheese

...re-read my response... i gave evidence to back my statements...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Great. My point is still valid.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

Great. My point is still valid.

In what dimension? In the the dimension of denial?

You claimed science doesn't rely on belief, but on certain situations it does, as in experiments such as the one this thread is about.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I call it basic logic. I understand you don't go there often.

No. Science doesn't rely on belief, pseudoscience does. You are running the conclusions through your own belief system and ignoring valid conclusions that don't require the belief of nonsense.

Now, I know you from prior discussions. No amount of logic and reason will change your mind. You will dig in the trenches and defend nonsense indefinitely. I also know more critical minds will see the errors right away as I did, so find no reason to waste my time explaining things here.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese

I call it basic logic. I understand you don't go there often.

I use it more often than you think. Care to explain how the experiments which state the opposite of what you claim are wrong? or are you basing your statements simply on your "belief"? ( see what I did there?)

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
...
Now, I know you from prior discussions. No amount of logic and reason will change your mind. You will dig in the trenches and defend nonsense indefinitely. I also know more critical minds will see the errors right away as I did, so find no reason to waste my time explaining things here.

Stop trying to change the subject. Other discussions are... other discussions. Pointing to other discussions simply derails the topic this discussion is about...

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
...
No. Science doesn't rely on belief, pseudoscience does. You are running the conclusions through your own belief system and ignoring valid conclusions that don't require the belief of nonsense.
...

So what you are saying is that Quantum mechanics/Quantum physics is not a science... This is based on your belief. But the science of quantum physics/quantum mechanics says the opposite of what you believe....

originally posted by: Agartha
I remember one of the criticism of his first work was that, even if the experiments proved something, it would still be unclear whether it was precognition, clairvoyance or telepathy.

Randomizing the images so that not even the testers knew what they were or were going to be might shield against some telepathy. I believe the remote viewer research by the Army utilized this protocol. They also instituted some measures to minimize the chance of clairvoyance, such as instituting a time-shift where the images were only selected after the targets were remote viewed.

I'm not sure what would be the best way to design against precognition. The viewer/subject has to eventually be shown the results of their test. (Or do they?) The idea of a person learning to get better at psi if they're given positive feedback has been around for a while, although that might not be a workable hypothesis, either.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
No. Science doesn't rely on belief, pseudoscience does.

Well, "science" doesn't just pull subjects for study randomly out of a hat. People (scientists) have interests and suspect that there are certain relationships between things, and then they make a subjective choice to study those things. The selection of what to study -- and the possible suspected outcome of the study -- are built-in biases that they try to eliminate from their testing.

If science was not done by humans, then it might have a better chance of not relying on insights and hunches to select the subjects of its studies, or strive to make those studies pan out.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're making the mistake of thinking that observation in physics = consciousness. That's not what observation means in that context.

a reply to: GetHyped

That's not what I am saying. Consciousness can have an effect on observation. In Quantum Mechanics it is known as the "Copenhagen Interpretation".

Or there is the following as well.

How the Power of Expectations Can Allow You to ‘Bend Reality’

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

From your wiki link:

Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.

The second link has nothing to do with QM.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I'm not in disagreement with you bias is inherent to human nature. Science doesn't use any one individuals biases, and has little to do with beliefs after forming an initial hypothesis. It's about controlled experiments and the replication of findings by peers within the scientific community.

originally posted by: GetHyped
From your wiki link:

Although the Copenhagen interpretation is often confused with the idea that consciousness causes collapse, it defines an "observer" merely as that which collapses the wave function.

That's what happens when you leave it to wikipedia.

Not sure if i am allowed to do this, but it is much better than wikipedia.

What is it exactly about the observer that can cause the collapse? There are many possibilities to what could be the cause.

One of the possible explanations include...

...
In the following answer I am going to refer to the unitary evolution of a quantum state vector (basically Schrodinger's Equation which provide the rate of change with respect to time of the quantum state or wave function) as U. I am going to refer to the state vector reduction (collapse of the wave function) as R. It is important to note that these two processes are separate and distinct. U is understood well and can be modelled accurately with the equations of QM, R is not well understood and it is some physicist's thoughts that QM will need to be modified to incorporate this state vector reduction process.

There is much to say about the R process, but I will address your question directly; basically "is it consciousness that reduces the state vector/collaspes the wave function?". Among those who take this explanation seriously as a description of the physical world, there are those who would argue that - as some alternative to trusting U at all scale and believing in a many-world type view point - that something of the nature of this R process occurs whenever the consciousness of an observer becomes involved. E. Wigner once sketched a theory of this kind in Nature in the 60s. The general idea was that unconscious matter or inanimate matter, would evolve according to U, but as soon as a conscious entity becomes physically entangled with the state, then something new comes in and actually reduces the state (some R process).
...

physics.stackexchange.com...

Yes, there are problems with the possibility of consciousness causing the collapse, but so do any other theories, or interpretations which also have problems.

originally posted by: GetHyped
The second link has nothing to do with QM.

That second story shows how thoughts can influence matter. in the case of that article, thoughts can influence our own bodies.

a reply to: GetHyped

Just to continue for the sake of the argument.

...
The posit that it is consciousness that causes this collapse is very hard to debunk, due to the very nature of this type of argument. However, if you consider the following example, it should be clear that this picture is far from complete; and that this argument for consciousness causing the R process is not sufficient. Consider the weather, the detailed weather patterns that occur on any planet, being dependent of chaotic processes, which much be sensitive to numerous individual quantum events. if the R process does not actually take place in the absence of consciousness, then no particular weather pattern could ever establish itself out of the morass of quantum-superposed alternatives. Can we really believe that the weather on these planets remain in complex-number superpositions of innumerable distinct possibilities - just some total hazy mess quite different from actual weather - until some conscious being becomes aware of it and then at that point, and only that point the superposed weather becomes actual weather? I don't think so - do you?
...

physics.stackexchange.com...

What the above response is not taking in consideration is the fact that our consciousness on it's own can't affect all matter. Otherwise every person by themselves would be capable of materializing objects, moving objects, and affecting the weather.

Affecting the weather of a planet is a much more difficult feat than affecting an experiment with our own consciousness. However, affecting an experiment on subatomic particles by a single individual's consciousness, or by a group of scientists, is not out of the question.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're quoting yet another source that says the opposite of what you're arguing.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Here's my thoughts on it. Precognition on the level shown is useless. Here's a different theory, each of us are living in our own personal version of the universe that conforms to our thoughts. Have you ever had psychic experiences? I've had a bunch where I simply get knowledge on what people are doing from miles away. Have you ever noticed that good things tend to happen to people who are optimistic and expect good things? Have you ever noticed the opposite with pessimists?

Instead of the person having precognition, is it not possible that they are altering their own future to match their preconceptions?

Interesting idea, but I think there are normal explanations for why good things tend to happen more to optimistic people (and why the opposite happens with pessimists).

Basically, if you’re optimistic then that will affect your behavior, which in turn affects the path you take and the reaction you get from those around you. You start a chain of events that are favorable to you rather than disfavorable. It therefore makes complete sense for optimism to lead to rewards without resorting to ‘The Secret’-type acausal explanations.

originally posted by: XCrissCrossX
Oh fluffy, that was a beautiful response

Haha thank you, your comment made me chuckle