/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14740023
Subconsciously picking up cues from the environment that are too subtle for the conscious mind.

>>14740023
Scientists can't explain consciousness since they hate God and worship their precious careers when they do not worship science and technology.
They will be getting a nasty surprise once they die...

>>14740023
>start concentrating on the staring.
Do you make a grunting sound or a “wewowewo” sound from you voice when you do this?
If so, this might explain why he knows. He simply hears you!

>>14740023
>I start concentrating on the staring. Suddenly he feels watched and turns around
mirros
>randomly think of some very special and rare word or topic and later that day it's mentioned by a coworker or in a news article.
schizophrenia

As far as science explaining it, I don't know if it has been researched. I imagine getting grants to research precognition is hard to say the least, and if it has been investigated I guess it was by private institutions. The thing is, if it worked, i doubt they would release their research. I know I wouldn't. Hell, if I got a grant to research precognition and I found it worked, i would fake the data to pretend it didn't. No way I would be sharing that with the world.

Having said that. I don't believe in dream precognition for a second. What could happen is that if you're consciously or unconsciously predicting that something mat happen, you may dream about it and it may happen.
As far as randomly thinking about something and then something related to that happening, I've had that happen to me but i imagine it's because one thinks about countless times each day, so eventually some of them are bound to be related to something that happens. Or maybe esp is real idk

And the one about staring at someone, dunno. I don't think the effect is real, i think people naturally look to their backs from time to time.

>>14740063
> one thinks about countless times each day
About many different things*

>>14740063
Didn't the US military do research on precognition and telepathy?

>>14740089
even if they did and it worked, do you think they would publish their results?

>>14740028
this
probably noticed someone watching you stare at him which clued him to change his gaze.
i knew a deaf guy who would 'hear' you talking about him all the time, because presumably he could tell when people were looking towards him a little more than normal.

If there is something science cannot explain, it still occurred for you to make this distinction, therefore there is still objective information to it, allowing it to exist/occur, it is simply just inaccessible, for the time being - or perhaps forever, depending on our biological, cultural and/or scientific limits, hypothetically.

I highly, highly doubt humans will ever assess everything, but my point still stands.

>>14740023
You're not alone in wondering this, and you're right: people can tell when someone is watching them. I've seen it myself, I've caused it to happen myself, I have no evidence obviously but I know it's true. I think though, that it's not special to humans. It's an Earthling thing, because cats also have it. You can look out the window at a cat, concentrate on it, and pretty soon it will look around to see who's watching it. I think that somewhere in our evolutionary past, the ability to feel watched, to know when you're being regarded, developed. I don't have an explanation, and as far as what scientific phenomenon is responsible for carrying the information I'm at a complete loss. I thought maybe it was somehow light for a while, because a few photons actually touch a watcher's eyes and then bounce off directly towards the watchee's head, but now I'm leaning more towards some undescribed shared mind sense that anything with a mind has. Like we were all once matter inside the same star, and so now we still share some weak bond.

>>14740023
>bus
Reflective surfaces abound. Im Guessing you make people unconditionally

>>14740023
Subtle physical cues and unconcius mass communication are far more likely than something as sci Fi as quantum entanglement. If you stare at someone In a bus full of people it's posible someone else noticed (even if unconciusly) and is emitting that signal via behaviour. For example they catch on their peripheral vision someone looking to the back of the bus and this tells them (there's a chance you're being watched so he checks, you don't see the times he checks without people being there. That being said instinct is usually right as 98% of people are closer to animals in how predictable and instinct driven they are. If you're in a bus with fewer or no people something as. Subtle as your respiration changing might give you away.

>>14740149
>I'm leaning more towards some undescribed shared mind sense that anything with a mind has
Related to this but has anyone ever experienced "panic in the woods?" It's similar instinctual feeling when deep in the forest, people have reported a feeling of imminent doom and dread. There are not many other people to explain that social cues could play any role. Flight kicks in and the person runs for their life despite no obvious signs of danger besides sudden complete silence. Some ESP going on too?

>>14740089
The CIA did research on remote viewing and even worked with a few psychics.

>>14740023
>>14740149
key here is that You are not actually involved in recognizing the gaze. It is the Heart that picks it up

>>14740031
Why the fuck are you on this board.
Anyone with basic reasoning can realize that the scientific process, logic, spirituality and religion can cohabitat if you are willing to open your mind.
Fuck scripture based religions. God is most likely pre-universe and nigh uncomprehensible. Sacraficed itself in order to create/become the universe.
But in truth no one really knows what comes before the creation of the universe, or what comes after death for concioussness. Anyone who says they have 100% certainty or proof of either of those things are lying. Because there is no way to know those things.
I'm sure you are a nice person, but if you came here just to insult this big bad "science" as a whole you can go talk about it in >>>/his/ or >>>/pol/

>>14741301
>scientific process, logic, spirituality and religion can cohabitat

>>14740097
They did.

"
In a review paper on Star Gate program, completed at the request of Congress, Utts assessed the evidence for remote viewing provided by research conducted over two decades at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) and at the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The SRI research encompassed 26,000 trials of which 20,000 were forced-choice, and 1,000 laboratory remote viewing trials conducted between 1973 and 1988. Utts found the overall probability of observing the results if chance alone was operating to be astronomically small (p = 10 x 10-20).

The early SRI experiments suffered from some methodological weaknesses. However, the same level of psi performance was evidenced in better controlled later studies. The SAIC experiments covered the years 1989-93, and provided a corpus of methodologically rigorous experiments supervised by experts in neuroscience, statistics and astronomy. Of ten experiments, six were remote viewing studies, of which four returned statistically significant results including one that reached extreme significance (p = 10 x 10-9)."
https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/jessica-utts#Star_Gate_Assessment

Also:

"That report’s conclusion—which echoed the assessments of the CIA officers involved in the program during the 1970s—was that enough accurate remote viewing experiences existed to defy randomness, but that the phenomenon was too unreliable, inconsistent, and sporadic to be useful for intelligence purposes. We decided not to restore the program."
https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-did-cia-really-study-psychic-powers/

(Cont...)

>>14742302
(Cont...)

Remote viewing has been used to identify kidnappers in the 70s as well as being utilised to find a downed plane in Africa. Of course, there is still lots of data that hasn't been released by the CIA on it but it has been claimed by one of the main CIA-backed researchers, Puthoff, that remote viewing was having so much success that it was used daily by agents. Sure enough skeptics won't trust this and they would go on quoting people such as Ray Hyman who, at first, even admitted that psi phenomena was real, to just go onto deny it because muh it's theoretical impossible. Such closed mindedness is probably out of keeping the mouth shut about the government's usage about such phenomena. Ask yourself, what would happen if the enemies of the US knew every secret military projects they had?

To the people that may deny psi phenomena as a whole, there is statistical evidence showing that people, generally, tend to experience at least once in their life unexplainable that can be described as psychic phenomena, especially relating telepathy and precognition. But, huh, everyone that experiences psychic phenomena is delusional, right? To affirm that a great amount of the general population is delusional or schizophrenic is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

>>14740023
Surviorship bias.
You think of thousand things but only remember the ones that also get brought up by someone and forget the rest