Replies

The article states that some people (In the group of 3000 people) are much better at making predictions then others including the so called experts with better source information.

There must be a reason(s) why this is so and the article neglects speculation on why this is happening. That some people are operating above the statistical probability and doing so consistently also points to the fact that something else must be in play here. What do you think it is, luck?

These amateurs are admittedly gathering their information from various news sources. Where does the news source get its info and how accurate is that info vs the source info available to intelligence agencies?

However, the information being asked for is not about what already has happened but about what is going to happen. The article’s point is about predicting the future. Ask yourself how is predicting the future possible? That is the point I was trying to though out for discussion in my comment.

In some of the research done on remote viewing and non local consciousness it was discovered that our normal concepts of time and place, or space do not follow what we would consider normal reality.

In fact, the best research I know that demonstrates the ability of one’s consciousness to exist outside the present involves remote viewing and non local consciousness. (study on Near Death Experiences, Holotropic Breath Work, some drug experiments and some religions have also skirted these concepts but not with the backup research provided by institutions like Princeton, University of Penn. and Stanford).

Much of the research done in these various studies were also, normal people, amateurs some of which happened to be better than others at performing some of the tasks asked of them, no matter how ridiculous those tasks sounded at the time.

Outside the above remote viewing / non local consciousness explanation of predicting the future, I had also posted a couple other comments on why or how this may be possible. Feel free to shoot me up on these concepts too.

One, Cliodynamics: The Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History, part of the UC system which continues to publish pieces on this subject (It’s a takeoff of the Isaac Asimov’s ideas in ‘The Foundation Trilogy” ) easy to search.

and I also through out a couple “group think experiments” that resulted in some success; the concept of Gestalt Psychology from the early 1900’s Germany and The 1% factor from Transcendental Meditation in the 1970’s

I would be interested in knowing HOW you think predicting the future accurately as stated in the article is possible?

It's not. It's a non-blind evaluation, which like most non-blind studies in inherently biased in a way that the practitioner is unable to detect -- because it's his own bias.

All of the pseudo-scientific claims you've made have been shout down whenever their results have been evaluated by judges who had no idea what the "experimenters" were trying to predict.

There is no "psi" in science. No reliable scientific study has ever found any basis for claims of non-local or non-temporal consciousness. Transcendental Meditation is a bunch of baloney. Please get real.