Scientists are convinced that man can see the future

I too have had so many experiences that have rattled me. Many of them listed by some of you. I felt 9-11 the day before and was paralyzed by it.

I believe in calling it: spiritual intuitiveness.

Also I believe that there are densities or dimensions with an energy flow that our mind and "emotional senses" can pick up. This energy flow could be moving forward and backward to us, at times coming from a place we are headed to.

Depending on how many blocks or filters a person has, preventing this spiritual intuitiveness from happening, a person can be stunned by all the metaphorical "noise" and "activity" going on in the invisible world.

This is why I don't believe in a higher self, because it seems so separate from me, yet easy to tap into. It would also explain why so many DO NOT have these experiences except; overlooked or easily dismissed; deja vu feelings- a couple in a lifetime, experiences, while some of us have it frequently.

I also have noted that they can be representational and not literal, but lead to an understanding of something that one is meant or selected to learn. They are not to always be taken literally and hence, are easily discounted.

I've experienced precognition several times. Nearly daily I am effected by people usually a second or two before something happens. I will have a major ping in my head, and a second later someone will drop a dish. Someone could easily just say I'm falsely associating the two, but it happens constantly.

When I took the Mensa test about a year ago, someone sneezed during the test, at the very moment of sneeze my right hand (I'm left handed) motioned downwards, at the end it motioned back up. Quick reflexes, a sensitive guy you say? Well, it was exactly the same time. It was eerie enough to gain the attention of our proctor whom when I looked up at, shortly after, had his jaw wide open and eyes large, fixated on me. Keep in mind the guy was gifted, so not easily fooled.

The night before my brother died, I felt a tremendous sorrow, and was openly crying in front of my friends. They asked what was wrong, and I said I didn't really know. My father and other brother came to my apartment to tell me the next morning. The apartment lady told me my family was here, and it was urgent. I knew someone had died. That was the most unbearable day ever.

I don't think that I cause any of this, just that I'm picking up on it ahead of time. Perhaps with meditation I can become more aware of what I'm receiving.

The only friend that knows I'm capable of this, is my gifted friend Surge. Most people aren't perceptive, and open enough to see it when it happens. Surge did. In front of him, and a few other people once, I answered someone before they asked the question. It was a "random" question, so I wasn't simply able to guess based on context. Amazingly, Surge was the only one who picked up on this. I don't know how anyone else didn't. Perhaps people are just too conditioned to this not being possible. IDK.

I'm a natural with meditation. I've mentioned it before, so don't want to get into it again. I truly think meditation unlocks gifts in everyone. I think the only reason I have this ability is because I've practiced meditation so much. Not saying everyone can be precognitive, but I don't doubt everyone has much more psychic potential than they think. If they meditated more, it would most likely manifest.

reply to post by Nobusuke Tagomi


Is predictions regarded as knowing the future? We can predict the future by analyzing some data, but if we have all the data we can know exactly what happens and when it happens. The problem is, we have very limited data. So once again is predictions regarded as knowing the future?

! HOAX ALERT !

For the results - released exclusively to the Daily Mail - suggest that ordinary people really do have a sixth sense that can help them 'see' the future.

Released exclusively to the Daily Mail. (A tabloid)

...


Sorry guys and gals.

It's a hoax.



Gotta love that dailyfail site. Always coming up with different fragrances of BS each day.

This, would be an example of an imaginary conclusion.


Please add redOrbit to your personal hoax site watchlist for acting in collusion with dailyMail by functioning as a proxy.

Likelihood of deliberately acting in collusion is as yet unknown, however, failure to check sources on redOrbit's part revokes credibility.


Does ATS have a hoax site watchlist? I should probably know this...
If not, might I suggest we start one?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by johnsky]

reply to post by johnsky


Thanks for the info. There are far too many hoaxers on these topics. It's too hard for most people to find precognition as a possibility, partly due to false reports like this.

I stand by my above post. I've experienced precognition, and know others have as well.

Oh don't worry, everyone's entitled to their opinion, I'm just warning you that this article is a falsification, a hoax.

Your opinions on the subject would remain just as valid as my own.

If not more so, considering you're suggesting you have first hand experience.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by johnsky]

Pffft...This is no news to me. I always knew that man could see into the future. Conan O'Brien does it all the time on his show "Late Night w/ Conan O'Brien".



SERIOUSLY...

...all kidding aside. I can't help but wonder...

First of all--suppose for a minute that it is 100% possible that we can view the past after it has occurred. Whereas the process would involve traveling to 'such & such' star in the sky at light speed. And look back at earth from said star and therefore, theoretically, be able to witness an event in the past which has already happened. (You can't physically interact with what you see--mind you.)

Now if one is able to view the future? Wouldn't that already kinda sorta pave the way towards being able to travel time? Now I wasn't thinking necessarily being able to physically travel time like in the film, "Back To The Future". I was thinking more like being able to do something like what you see in the movie "Frequency".


[edit on 3/4/09 by Marked One]

reply to post by johnsky

So where's the evidence that the article was a hoax? I don't see you providing any link or evidence to support this. I personally like the Daily Mail for entertainment / catching up with celebrity gossip purposes, along with the weird-and-wacky news items they bring. Just because it's tabloid, doesn't make it false.

The brain computes value-based expectations so rapidly that they are constantly being reflected in a state of mind at a very precise level prior to the physical occurrence of the actual event. This doesn't mean information is physically being processed from the future. That's technically impossible. Our ability to approximate the future is overwhelmingly accurate for vital evolutionary reasons.

It also has to do with our definition of time. In reality, there is no such thing as physically demarcated instances of time and space. We create a perception of symbolic "time" because we can only deal with information as it is being processed. To tell your friend that a house, which burned down twenty years ago is currently consumed in flames just wouldn't make for a comprehensible conversation. To say you are still six years old wouldn't much make sense either. But are we still young, are houses still raging that have subsided years ago? Unfortunately, we can't perceive information in four dimensions. Whatever kind of a brain could accomplish that would look biiizzaarre.

Physical properties are in constant flux. We'll never really know why this is quite so, exactly... nonetheless, if you imagine the universe as a giant blob of perfectly transparent jell-o, then observable matter are the chunks of fruit being suspended in it (the particles making up matter are so dense they are observable to the human eye). This can be anything from people, plants, mountains, to fire, water and asteroids... anything you can see are the chunks of fruit. Everything else is immensely uncompressed. Have you ever held up an almond in front of you and asked how its existence is physically possible? Isn't it just remarkable that so much matter could become so dense that it appears right before your eyes as distinguishable from the rest of matter?

Within any physical field, there is no such thing as absolute space. Since the observable universe is one physical large field, then anything that is not within this field is not in the universe. That is what Einstein conjectured, and it was so credible that all of modern physics is now set on a path to prove his theory. Space is just a linguistic symbol, a conceptual construct invented to allow us communicate. Our senses are definitely restricted by our biology, and so it wouldn't be a far stretch to make an visual assumption about the existence of space, because there are very few particles making it up. It looks like nothing, and nothing looks rather uniform. So wherever we see this "uniform nothing", we attribute it to a lack of existence, or some inter-dimensional medium we all pass through (this is invalid).

Information is just the recognition of the "present state (at the point of observation) of a constantly changing system."

With the laws of the universe being as they are, as described by Newton and Einstein, there are only so many possible configurations of matter. Now, if the brain can imagine more than all the possible configurations of a thermodynamic, relativistic universe then it's not a far stretch to assume people can predict future states of information, or something very close to it, before it actually occurs.

What's significant is that these people only have access to partial predictions about the future, and they usually manifest in the form of unfamiliar emotional feelings; they don't see the future in full, vivid color. That means that while they could be predicting events similar to the ones which eventually occur, they aren't actually, physically processing information that doesn't exist yet. That's just not possible.

I believe evolved, predictive reasoning is responsible for the acquisition of information that is similar, while not physically exact (exactness might not even be a real condition), to a set of possible future states of information. Since the set of all possible future states of information is limited (due to known physical laws), and we assume the brain can imagine states of information that might possibly exist beyond the thermodynamic, relativist limits of existence (what we call our universe), from which our biology itself evolved and is brutally subject to, then it might be plausible any range of predictions can be made with some accuracy, and that sometimes these predictions exist in the faintest states of our unconscious mind, and that even further they might be manifested in the form of an unruly stomach ache, or an intuitively "bad" feeling.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by RiotComing


You can call the university and ask them yourself if you like.
T: +31 20 525 2695
That's their press office.

Ask them if Dr. Bierman's findings are exclusively provided to daily mail.

Or you can e-mail Dr. Bierman and ask him yourself, but I think I might tick him off if I cause a flood of e-mails into his inbox, but his e-mail address is available on the faculty site for the university of Amsterdam.

While Dr. Bierman IS in fact studying the mental effect commonly called "intuition" his work is neither conclusive yet, nor has he pandered exclusively to daily mail as the article claims.

Professors release their findings to the public realm... not to tabloids.

Daily Mail, or in this case their proxy, has stretched his studies to say things he doesn't. Claiming scientists are convinced, whereas, all he's saying is it's a field of study he finds interesting... and claiming his findings are released exclusively to daily mail, which would pretty much end his funding on the spot if it were true.

I've caught daily mail lying on numerous occasions before... really, as entertaining as they may be to some people, they readily lie to make a story.


The actual information : Yes, Dr. Bierman's work is related to intuition, and yes, he has an interest in quantum phenomenon... however, his work is not conclusive yet, the staff there aren't convinced yet, and their findings are not exclusive to daily mail.


The worst lies are half-truths.

I can pick a professor and an interesting topic and lie about his findings too... but I don't... I have morals.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by johnsky]