the way of the force : premonitions

on prmonitions and the future of SCIFI

article compiled work by Henryk Szubinski


Clarke’s Three Laws are three “laws” of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke. They are:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Precognition (from the Latin præ-, “before,” + cognitio, “acquiring knowledge”), also called future sight,[1] refers to perception that involves the acquisition or effect of future information that cannot be deduced from presently available and normally acquired sense-based information or laws of physics and/or nature.[2][3] The related terms, premonition (from the Latin praemonēre) and presentiment refer to information about future events that is perceived as emotions. The terms are usually used to denote a seemingly parapsychological or extrasensory process of perception, including clairvoyance. Psychological processes have also explained the phenomena.
As with other forms of extrasensory perception, the existence of precognition is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community, because no replicable demonstration has ever been achieved.[4] Scientific investigation of extrasensory perception (ESP) is complicated by the definition which implies that the phenomena go against established principles of science.[5] Specifically, precognition would violate the principle that an effect cannot occur before its cause.[5] However, there are established biases, affecting human memory and judgment of probability, that create convincing but false impressions of precognition.[6]

Forced-choice studies
Most experiments on precognition have involved a forced-choice procedure.[citation needed] The first such ongoing and organized research program on precognition was instituted by J. B. Rhine in the 1930s at Duke University’s Parapsychology Laboratory.[21] Rhine used a method of forced-choice matching in which participants recorded their guesses as to the order of a deck of 25 cards, each five of which bore one of five geometrical symbols. The test of precognition was based on the fact that these “guesses” were made before the deck was shuffled by the experimenter.[22] In an effort to distinguish between different parapsychological accounts of precognition, and to better understand its conditions, experiments were conducted in which the order of the target deck of cards was determined by hand versus machine, or by reference to macroscopic events, such as randomly selected meteorological readings, or by complex algorithms. Early experiments also sought to determine the temporal scope of precognition by organizing the target deck only 1-2 versus 10 days, or even a year, after responses had been recorded and secured.[23][24][25]
Experiments by Samuel G. Soal, a mathematician, and colleagues seemed to provide impressive evidence of precognition. They ran forced-choice ESP experiments in which someone attempted to identify which of five animal pictures a subject in another room was looking at.[26] Their performance on this task was at chance, but when the scores were matched with the card that came after the target card, three of the thirteen subjects showed a very high hit rate. These experiments were hailed as “the most impressive data ever reported” for ESP, with controls that “seem to be absolutely watertight”.[26] Rhine described Soal’s work as “a milestone in the field”.[26] A dissenting view came from research chemist George Price who reviewed Soal and Bateman’s book Modern Experiments in Telepathy for the journal Science in 1955.[27] Price argued that since ESP was so unlikely, the positive results not attributable to error were more likely the result of deliberate fraud.[27] This prompted several replies that Price’s criticism was unfair, resting on the mere possibility of fraud rather than actual proof.[26] In 1978, the experiments were in fact exposed as totally fraudulent. The statistician and paragnost Betty Markwick, while seeking to vindicate Soal, discovered that he had altered his data to create all the extra hits and so the study its statistical significance.[27] The untainted experimental results showed absolutely no evidence of precognition in the hits or the ratios.[26]
A meta-analysis of all reports in the parapsychological literature of card-calling experiments on precognition was conducted in the late 1980s.[28] This encompassed 309 experiments reported by 62 different investigators and published between 1935 and 1987. 23 of the 62 investigators reported positive results. The overall result offered precognition as a reliable but small effect over these studies, and an effect that could not be accounted for by levels of methodological reliability (as assessed by rating the studies on eight attributes of method), nor any publication bias against reporting null results.
Other researchers, including Smithsonian Executive Secretary Charles Greeley Abbot and British psychologist R. H. Thouless, introduced the study of precognition in the displacement of guesses to targets. This involved a set of target symbols, and “guesses” as to their identity, but, rather than precognizing the order of a whole deck of symbols, scored for precognition by checking the correspondence between each response and the target assigned to one or more trials ahead of that to which the response was originally assigned. Several studies using this method have continually offered displacement as reliable evidence for precognition.[29][30]
Following these experiments, a more automated technique of experimentation was introduced that did not rely on hand-scoring of equivalence between targets and guesses, and in which the targets could be more reliably and readily tested as random. This involved testing for precognition with the use of high-speed random event generators (REG), as introduced by Helmut Schmidt in 1969[31] and further conducted, in particular, at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (1979–2007).[32] In this procedure, participants indicate when they believe (by whatever means available to them) that the REG has produced an event that either conforms or differs from one of two target events. In comparison to the card-guessing type of experiments, this procedure permits much more data to be collected in an experimental session, while reducing the number of alternatives that need to guessed.[citation needed]

if you have had mediumistic experiences or feel that you can develop them


Have you ever thought ‘there has to be more to life than this’ – ‘where do I go when i die’ – ‘is there really an afterlife’ – ‘are there really guardian angels, and do I have one’ – ‘what’s the difference between a spirit guide and a guardian angel’ – and the list goes on infinitum.

Lets discuss these questions and more:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s