Human's can see the future!

[Dropkick]

He's implying that what the results of the the tests show, is that he could 'see' them. He is being figurative, not literal. I think that is quite obvious when you consider that he is talking about specific scientific tests.

 

What the fuck are you on about. It is obvious that he is talking about being shown the cards.

[bobhorse]

i have seen the future loads of times i will give you just two examples

 

when i was about 13 i saw myself standing somewhere shutting a big whitedoor in a bad storm lasted about 20 seconds i didnt know where it was cos it was like nothing i had seen before and i have never forgoton it anyway at 17 i was on a ship working for BP when during a bad storm in the bay of Biscay Iwas in the place i had seen years before doing exactly the same things in the same sequence

The other

 

I saw/dreamt a horse race i saw it going to the start with the jockey on i saw its colours and i saw it piss the race i told my dad and he would back two flies up a wall but i didnt get its name or anything then a few months latter my mum asked me to go to the pub and tell me dad she was going out or something anyway i went in and was just telling him that when i saw the horse that i had seen in my dream it was Sun Princess i told him that was it he said how did i know and was i sure and i told him he pulls the horse up at the start it turns to the left the jockey puts his hands to his goggles messes about with them and the horse tops dead while he does it so there where 4 of us watching this telly as i did a running comentry on it going down to the start at which point Me dad took out all the money he had in the world borrowed as much as he could from his mates in the Bar then told them all this horse would win by 10 lengths he had the biggest bet of his life on that horse and in the three mins or so left before the start of the race every man in the pub was on it the horse had never won a race in its life but won the Oaks that day by 12 lengths me Dad won enough to keep me Mum happy i had £25 on it all i had on me that day

Oh and me dad didnt go home for his tea either he was returned home the next day by his mates still pissed one of the happiest days i can remember with me Dad that

 

i know people will say bolloxs to all this and to be fair i would but i know its true cos it happend to me and that is all the prove i need

 

As i say i have loads of them types of lets just say (visions) but there isnt any pattern to when or what i will see or how near or far from happening they are

[Spy Bee]

What the fuck are you on about. It is obvious that he is talking about being shown the cards.

 

How do you not understand what I have said? You are taking a quote out of context and deciding what it means, whereas if you look at it, sensibly, and rationally, you would see that what you initially drew from what you read was incorrect.

 

If a Nobel prize winner thought he could actually see the images on the cards, I reckon that he might have tried to test that empirically - which would have made him, well, pretty fucking awesome.

 

Do you understand what I am saying?

[Spy Bee]

What the fuck are you on about. It is obvious that he is talking about being shown the cards.

 

My initial response before I deleted it was more to the point:

 

 

Bell end!

[Dropkick]

For many years the U.S. military (and latterly the CIA) funded a secretive programme known as Stargate, which set out to investigate premonitions and the ability of mediums to predict the future.

 

Dr Dean Radin worked on the Stargate programme and became fascinated by the ability of 'lucky' soldiers to forecast the future.

 

These are the ones who survived battles against seemingly impossible odds.

 

Radin became convinced that thoughts and feelings - and occasionally-actual glimpses of the future - could flow backwards in time to guide soldiers. It helped them make lifesaving decisions, often on the basis of a hunch.

 

He devised an experiment to test these ideas. He hooked up volunteers to a modified lie detector, which measured an electrical current across the surface of the skin.

 

This current changes when a person reacts to an event such as seeing an extremely violent picture or video. It's the electrical equivalent of a wince. Radin showed sexually explicit, violent or soothing images to volunteers in a random sequence determined by computer.

 

And he soon discovered that people began reacting to the pictures before they saw them. It was unmistakable.

 

They began to 'wince' a few seconds before they actually saw the image.

 

And it happened time and time again, way beyond what chance alone would allow.

 

So impressive were Radin's results that Dr Kary Mullis, a Nobel Prizewinning chemist, took an interest.

 

He was hooked up to Radin's machine and shown the emotionally charged images.

 

'It's spooky,' he says 'I could see about three seconds into the future.

 

You shouldn't be able to do that.' OTHER researchers from around the world, from Edinburgh University to Cornell in the U.S., rushed to duplicate Radin's experiment and improve on it. And they got similar results.

 

It was soon discovered that gamblers began reacting subconsciously shortly before they won or lost. The same effect was seen in those terrified of animals, moments before they were shown the creatures. The odds against all of these trials being wrong are literally millions to one against.

 

How do you not understand what I have said? You are taking a quote out of context and deciding what it means, whereas if you look at it, sensibly, and rationally, you would see that what you initially drew from what you read was incorrect.

 

If a Nobel prize winner thought he could actually see the images on the cards, I reckon that he might have tried to test that empirically - which would have made him, well, pretty fucking awesome.

 

Do you understand what I am saying?

 

The quotes are not out of context you are talking shit that is why I dont understand you.

[Spy Bee]

The quotes are not out of context you are talking shit that is why I dont understand you.

 

Google 'implied meaning', or 'mong'.

[Dropkick]

What is the matter with you you post a story and then complain when no one responds and then when I ask an innocent question about the only interesting bit in the story you disregard my question and go on as if that bit wasnt really saying anything in particular at all.

[Jose Jones]

Fish can see into the future in this way too. Some university heads did experiments where they had a big tank of fish and picked one that they were going to take out of the tank and kill in 10 minutes time. Without going near the tank or pointing at the fish or anything.

The fish they decided was going to die immediately started swimming faster and more frenziedly than all the other fish, almost as if it was trying to escape or something.

 

If you google it you should be able to find a link to that experiment. Or maybe some fish porn.

[Remmie]

And it's orange!

*shakes head*

[Spy Bee]

What is the matter with you you post a story and then complain when no one responds and then when I ask an innocent question about the only interesting bit in the story you disregard my question and go on as if that bit wasnt really saying anything in particular at all.

 

I wasn't complaining, I was joking.

 

You think that there was only one interesting part of a story about humans possibly being able to see into the future? Something that would change our entire perception of life?

 

I've already explained to you that what was said was obviously implied. It takes no large amount of intelligence to understand that. What don't you understand about implied meaning?

[Spy Bee]

Fish can see into the future in this way too. Some university heads did experiments where they had a big tank of fish and picked one that they were going to take out of the tank and kill in 10 minutes time. Without going near the tank or pointing at the fish or anything.

The fish they decided was going to die immediately started swimming faster and more frenziedly than all the other fish, almost as if it was trying to escape or something.

 

If you google it you should be able to find a link to that experiment. Or maybe some fish porn.

 

So fish are better at looking forward than they are backward!

 

I did Google and couldn't find anything.

[Dropkick]

I wasn't complaining, I was joking.

 

You think that there was only one interesting part of a story about humans possibly being able to see into the future? Something that would change our entire perception of life?

 

I've already explained to you that what was said was obviously implied. It takes no large amount of intelligence to understand that. What don't you understand about implied meaning?

 

You is the one who does not understand implications. It implies that you do not make an interesting signal when you see a relaxing picture.

[Spy Bee]

I'm sorry, I feel I have gone as far as I can in this conversation.

[Dropkick]

Then I win by default.

 

Is consciousness limited to perception of the sensory present and memory of the past, or does it also have access to future information? In an experiment designed to explore this question, a computer was used to randomly select and present target photos from a pool of digitized photographs. Some targets labeled "calm" included landscapes and cheerful people; other targets labeled "extreme" included violent and erotic topics. Heart rate, blood volume, and electrodermal activity were recorded before, during and after presentation of the target photo to see whether the body would unconsciously respond differentially to the two types of future targets. Extreme targets were expected to produce classical orienting responses after the targets were displayed, and a "presentiment" (future feeling) effect was predicted to produce orienting pre-sponses before the pictures were displayed. Calm targets were expected to cause no unusual responses before or after the target was displayed. Four experiments, involving 31 participants who viewed a total of 1,060 target photos, showed the expected orienting response after the target photo was displayed. In accordance with a presentiment hypothesis, there was a clear orienting pre-sponse that peaked with a four standard error difference in physiological measures between extreme and calm targets one second before the target photo was displayed.

 

http://rapidshare.com/files/80554329/radin_presentiment_2004.pdf.html

[Spy Bee]

How have you won?

 

Why have you posted the same or a very similar experiment again?

 

Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

[Dropkick]

I posted another description of the experiment because you do not seem to understand that the subject really did produce different responses before seeing the different pictures.

[Spy Bee]

Oh my God, we might as well be talking different languages.

 

What I'm saying is that yes, they did react to the picture before they had seen it. But they didn't actually see it - you couldn't have stopped before you showed it to them and asked for a description. They just had some idea of the feeling seeing the picture was going to give them.

 

What's the rapidshare anyway?

[Liquid football]

Ive dreamt the future on a few occasions. I wrote my dreams down for about a year and i had loads of lucid dreams and a few of instances of dreaming future events. Debate over - people can see the future. Sound.

[Dropkick]

Oh my God, we might as well be talking different languages.

 

What I'm saying is that yes, they did react to the picture before they had seen it. But they didn't actually see it - you couldn't have stopped before you showed it to them and asked for a description. They just had some idea of the feeling seeing the picture was going to give them.

 

What's the rapidshare anyway?

 

But there were TWO kinds of pictures and they had DIFFERENT responses depending on which kind of picture it was so you COULD have stopped before showing it to them and the lie detector would have told you which KIND of picture it was.

 

PS The rapidshare is one of Radin's papers in pdf format.

[Spy Bee]

But there were TWO kinds of pictures and they had DIFFERENT responses depending on which kind of picture it was so you COULD have stopped before showing it to them and the lie detector would have told you which KIND of picture it was.

 

Noooooooooooooo!

 

They were experiencing feelings which would pertain to what they would felt when they saw the card. They weren't actually seeing the card though.

 

The other night I was bombing it along in my van when I suddenly slowed down. I had no reason to slow down but I did. As it happens a car from a side lane pulled out right in front of me. I hadn't actually seen that car pulling out - but I experienced an emotion which made me act in the way I did.

 

Now the little story above is not scientific, and it could be argued that there are a number of other reasons that I slowed. However, it illustrates my point about not actually physically seeing anything.

 

Do you get me now?

[Remmie]

2 strange things happen quite close together. The human mind, in a manic attempt to try and make sense of it, feels the desire to link the 2 events. I have to say I'm extremely sceptical.

[Spy Bee]

2 strange things happen quite close together. The human mind, in a manic attempt to try and make sense of it, feels the desire to link the 2 events. I have to say I'm extremely sceptical.

 

I agree that is probably the case in my situation, but the scientific experiments?

 

I am sceptical of very little. I really think that we don't know hardly anything atb all.

 

Good article on that here

 

http://thunderbolts.info/webnews/122807baffledastronomers.htm

[Dropkick]

Noooooooooooooo!

 

They were experiencing feelings which would pertain to what they would felt when they saw the card. They weren't actually seeing the card though.

 

The other night I was bombing it along in my van when I suddenly slowed down. I had no reason to slow down but I did. As it happens a car from a side lane pulled out right in front of me. I hadn't actually seen that car pulling out - but I experienced an emotion which made me act in the way I did.

 

Now the little story above is not scientific, and it could be argued that there are a number of other reasons that I slowed. However, it illustrates my point about not actually physically seeing anything.

 

Do you get me now?

 

Of course it doesnt say that they could see the card like they could describe it of course not. But it does say that they could distinguish between the two kinds of cards.

[Spy Bee]

Of course it doesnt say that they could see the card like they could describe it of course not. But it does say that they could distinguish between the two kinds of cards.

 

Honestly! Go back and read this thread and see that that is exactly what I have been saying to you all along. :wallbutt:

[Dropkick]

Honestly! Go back and read this thread and see that that is exactly what I have been saying to you all along. :wallbutt:

 

You havent you have always be denying that they could tell anything even now I dont know whether you understand my question.