Yup, excellent example.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/08/2010 8:33:23 AM PST by The Comedian
Is Precognition Real? Cornell University Lab Releases Powerful New Evidence that the Human Mind can Perceive the Future Written By: Ben Goertzel Date Published: November 4, 2010 According to today’s conventional scientific wisdom, time flows strictly forward — from the past to the future through the present. We can remember the past, and we can predict the future based on the past (albeit imperfectly) — but we can’t perceive the future.
But if the recent data from the lab of Prof. Daryl Bem at Cornell University is correct, conventional scientific wisdom may need some corrections on this particular point.
In a research paper titled Feeling the Future, recently accepted for publication in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Bem presents some rather compelling empirical evidence that in some cases — and with weak but highly statistically significant accuracy – many human beings can directly perceive the future. Not just predict it based on the past.
(Excerpt) Read more at hplusmagazine.com ...
That was fricking point, you arrogant, know-it-all ninny.
I just realized I totally mangled the first part of my response. it should read:
“Resort to the ‘heretofore by the party of the first part’ voice is perfectly justifiable if I refuse to answer your question. Which I do.”
“That was fricking point, you arrogant, know-it-all ninny”
No it wasn’t. Your point, or at least the one I originally responded to, was that we don’t know a shred about quantum mechanics. To which I responded “quantum mechanics has various problems, but it’s still science.” To which you responded that we observe but don’t understand. To which I repsonded that quantum physics consists of theories believed in by many geniuses and proven out by countless experiments over the last century, which implies some level of understanding. To which you, quite out of nowhere, brought up consciousness. To which I reacted as if it were beside the point, and so it was.
Either you never understood what I was saying or have forgotten what you were saying. My whole point was that we (especially if we are physicists) know things about quantum mechanics; that it is a science and not just random observations about mysterious doings. Whether or not we can describe consciousness in terms of quantum mechanics is neither here nor there. If we can’t it doesn’t mean we don’t know a shred about quantum physics, any more than classical Newtonian physics’ inability to explain subatomic particles means Newton didn’t know a shred about anything and just sat around observing and recording the incomprhensible.
Boiling it down, you seem to think we have to have a causal explanation of consciousness from quantum mechanics in order for quantum mechanics to be anything more than mindless observation. We don’t. The various postulates of quantum mechanics are valid or invalid without regard to the mystery of consciousness.
“Just because you can create a mathematical model of something doesn’t mean you understand it.”
Nor do you necessarily understand something by putting into words. But at least you understand the math, which is the point. Proper scientists don’t mistake models for reality, even ones they consider to be the best existing (or possible, even) explanation.
Again, though, this is beside the original point. Science is not about totally, utterly, exhaustively, completely, absolutely, and perfectly understanding reality. Quantum mechanics makes no claim to everything about everything. But we do know some things. Shreds, if you will. And we don’t merely observe. We come up with theories and test them.
Where did I say it did?
All I said was that consciousness and quantum mechanics are intimately intertwined since quantum mechanics is based on the observation of a conscious entity, and that we don't understand it all.
≤}B^)
“Where did I say it did?”
By constantly bringing up consciousness, you implied it did. Or perhaps that was my fault, forgetting you think consciousness to be somehow basic to the discipline, which it isn’t.
“and that we don’t understand it all”
You didn’t say the problem was we don’t understand everything about it. If it was, you wouldn’t have responded negatively to my original post, in which I admitted quantum mechanics has various problems and shortcomings. You said that we don’t understand it at all. Not a shred (your word). Also, that it’s nothing more than observation.
“quantum mechanics is based on the observation of a conscious entity”
Like I said, no it isn’t, at least not any moreso than any other science. Or any unscientific field of inquiry, for that matter.
Thanks, I think they wrote some papers together. A lot of people get them confused.
My husband and I don’t play “Go Fish” with my daughter for a reason. Not much fun playing “Sorry” with her either. She too often knows what the next card is. So many losses get discouraging. We get back at her by creaping her out at how often we’re thinking and/or saying the exact same thing.
I have lots of dreams that are precognitive....it’s scary, but it does happen.
Yup, excellent example.
“...for instance when my brain told my fingers to type this post.”
But the “psychics” will ask: “How do you know it wasn’t MY brain that told you what to type?”
What I want to know is if the psychics are so good why do they want me to call THEM with my credit card number. Why don’t they call ME, and don’t they already know my credit card number?
As far as precog, one time when I was a teenager I had a dream shrouded in fog(weird, never happened before or since), my dog was limping.
Next day my brother slams the bedroom door on the dogs paw, he's limping.
Of course, none of this explains Snooki.
Here’s a funny I thought was precognitive-
When I was growing up, I couldn’t stand it when I heard someone called the name, “Jimmy.” It irritated me really, really badly, as did expressions such as “Jimmy the lock.” It made no sense why it was so aggravating. My husband, who I consider my soul mate and love dearly, has a given name of “Jimmy,” and it’s not just shortened from “James” which is my son’s name from my first marriage.
What do you think you mean by the word "understanding"? The same is true for all theories, on some level it's all an abstraction which we use to present the physical world in terminology that we can comprehend and manipulate. Do we really understand such staid classical concepts as energy or mass? We understand them in as far as we can observe their behavior and use those observations - criteria in no way different from that which you've applied to quantum mechanics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.