WOW.

That is going to take a few reads for me absorb with any kind of clarity. I've been working on a few little research projects, one involving the possible presence of a body of non statistical data, accessible by the collective consciousness (if such a thing exists) and the other involves the non linearity of 'time' (time is dimensional versus strictly linear is the way I'm looking at it).

This fits right into that. Thank you for the pointer, Magister.

You are welcome.

Remember please that evidence is not proof.

Evidence is only evidence.

How we interpret it can vary and is not always right.

It is only based on journals. There is not one Scientist of any degree in any field qualified to studying humans and the mind cited as a source to any of that. (Dean Radin is a Scientist but he is only a physicist and does not have education on the human mind unless you consider Parapsychology a valid Science to study the mind.)

And thus there is no way to investigate on any academic publications that would provide even the means to find out if there is any proof.
(Although it did note some Brain Scientists that had disagreed with the journals that were used.)

Dr. Michael Shermer, founder of Skeptics Society on the other hand is very unlikely to have missed anything of this nature allowing it to remain without serious debunking providing academic proof.
(And Shermer's Ph.D. is in History of Science which means he is superbly qualified to criticize what kind of Scientist is qualified to study these kinds of things.)

And frankly I couldn't find any experiment or evidence that wouldn't have reminded me from a bunch of different presentations of how experiments produce false results.

I don't know what's wrong with these people, but there are a lot of quantum physicist trying to leap over to human sciences fantasizing about what it would be like if the human brain could work like quantum physics.
It doesn't, and all they do by working without proper education is muddy the waters of science and lower it's credibility.

The right kind of scientists like Ramachandran and Sam Harris do study these things and if Scientists like that ever find something like this then I would get deeper in to it.

Yessir, point taken. Proceeding with caution

Well, cautious enthusiasm is probably a better descriptor.

Don't get fooled.
Time reverse effects are a fact in physics in certain anomalies and scales, to that there is proof, and to that the Quantum Physicist have credibility to argue theories.
But anything to do with the human brain?

There is not a shred of proof and very solid reasons to assume there is no such possibility.
Guessing, "since these things can occur in the laboratory what about the human brain?" isn't enough, and isn't the job of the Quantum Physicist but a Neurophysicist.

These wild guesses have been answered several times in almost every seminar that has to do with the brain and where some over enthusiastic Quantum Cook comes with their eyes gleaming to share their theories of other Scientists fields of study.

Many scientists are an enthusiastic bunch and it helps them when they are working in their own field.

Zardex

My apologies, I didn't mean to seem as if I were ignoring your input. Admittedly I am out of my league when discussing the outer reaches of scientific study/application. In many fields, basic discussion is beyond my scope of knowledge. Right now I'm in my second reading of Hawking's "Brief History of Time" and making some headway in rectifying my own deficiencies. I do appreciate your efforts to steer me in the right direction as I appreciate Magister Nemo's efforts to do the same.

The point is when looking at empirical evidence, cause and effect are simple enough to be taken as fact. If A+B=C under the same controlled conditions then you know the outcome under those conditions to be always the same.

Now people going off on a limb here. By saying that SOMETIMES, A+B=C under controlled conditions. The possibility of A+B=C in those conditions being really small therefore getting that result means that A+B=C in those conditions proves the existence of some new rule or theory. ... Uh.. No, that's not how it works. It means you may be onto something but you're not anywhere near close enough to draw a conclusion that should be held as valid or important.

This kind of logic that things may be possible because of some little anomaly is commonly used by people to try to prove the existence of some higher power or other. The credibility of this argument is quite empty. This paper seems to draw far too many conclusions on inconclusive evidence. Sure it's possible, it's also possible I'll win the lottery tomorrow.

Beware of hubris.

Beware of hubris.

Skip the credential-comparisons and examine the evidence.

It takes only ONE white crow to PROVE that all crows are not black.

Only one.

I think it's fair enough to say that you and I don't see eye to eye on some of this stuff as evidenced by the content of our posts on other threads. I'm disinclined to accepting anything as 'fact' and you seem to thrive on statistical data. I'm not possessed of a great analytical mind as I am classically trained in fine art and feel that I'm most skilled in left brain activity (though I make my living in a science field). One thing that working in the field I work in has taught me is that expected results often vary to a great degree, even in controlled testing.

Don't take this as a slight in any way, I do appreciate your insights... I just tend to approach problems differently (again, admittedly, my approaches might not be the best way but they make sense to me).

I think Magister Nemo has again shown great wisdom in counseling against hubris.

Still, I'd like to see more tangible evidence before I buy into something. I'm not saying I discard it entierly; I just do not depend or function on the unknown in my life. Hubris is bad, but doubt is not. Magister Nemo is very insightful with his posts.

It is easy to produce results that look like evidence, and with enthusiasm it is easy to accidentally falsify those results.

Criticism is usually the first thing to do if you want answers.
It is pointless to dwell on this so called evidence before looking in to the criticism.

Sure I could be wrong and he could be on to something, but he does not catch my interest by drowning his finding in a pile of rubbish.

For instance when talking of those types of tests where people are guessing at what picture is in a card. Similar thing is done with illusionist stage magic. (And can be done accidentally)
If A+B=C almost all the time or even 100% of the time you still need to rule out foul play and errors.
If you want more detailed criticism against it then all you need to do is look in to it. (From for instance the Skeptics society)

And it is also good to consider the source.
I have no interest in joining Radin's war against the Skeptics society.
There are people investigating these things who actually have education on the human brain.

It's not that I'm being overly confident, I'm just not interested in old stuff I have already seen debunked.

(PS: Thank you Magister Nemo for suggesting Lucifer Principle which I just recently purchased.
Impressing enough it starts with a praising foreword from David Sloan Wilson who is known as one for the most sternest evolutionary science critics.)

My entire point is that the very real evidence exists that has not been "debunked" whatsoever.

It has been inadequately "explained away" by those who have not actually reviewed the evidence in question itself.

If you do not wish to examine the evidence, that is fine.

It does not change the fact that the evidence is real.

Also, please understand that evidence is not proof.

But neither is evidence to be ignored merely if it is inconvenient or even emotionally upsetting.

The evidence for what appears to be "precognition" is greater than that for any other supernormal items.

Polemics will not alter this fact.

For the Satanist, there is no "war" against this or that opinion.

But we are dead set against taking a perspective that requires ignoring the facts of reality when those facts contradict our assumptions.

That is why Satanism is at odds with faith-based religions.

We are equally against faith-based viewpoints in any area!

When you do read The Lucifer Principle (an excellent book in my opinion) you will have the opportunity to better understand the psychological principles behind such willful ignorance in favor of winning peer approval.

Opinion is irrelevant when evidence is offered.

The evidence is supreme.

The rest is only monkey politics.

How about the 9/11 events?

Look at what happened to worldwide random number generators more than two hours prior to the attacks:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/911anim.var.html

If you look at the overall data at this same site then it is clear that this was not accounted for by any normal deviations.

The evidence happened.

It was very real.

This is only one of many, many such examples of "tangible evidence".

Anyone can ignore it if they wish.

That does not make it "go away".

Neither does that mean that if "proves" any particular viewpoint right or wrong.

But it is real whether anyone likes it or not.