25 4


Has anyone experienced precognition?

kensmile4u 8 Dec 28

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I've noticed a number of 'open mind' comments and I hasten to point out that keeping an open mind is certainly a good idea, but an even better idea is keeping a functioning mind that views the world through a critical filter.

-------------------------- from Rationalwiki....

Most "evidence" for precognition tends to come from anecdotes rather than any actual data — indeed, properly controlled trials show no effect. People who don't do this for a living — such as dear ol' Aunt Gladis who says she can predict the future — tend to rely on confirmation bias and selective reporting, which are both effects of the human mind recalling and confirming some instances and forgetting disconfirming others.

That is to say, dear Aunt Gladis had a dream one night that a plane would crash and the next day one did. So she says to herself "I can predict the future". And if it should happen again, for instance she dreams her son would get sick and he does, that reinforces her belief that she is "seeing the future." However, what she conveniently forgets are the thousands of other dreams that "predicted" the future, which never played out in the real world. This is because cases that don't agree aren't particularly interesting or notable — no one remarks at a lack of co-incidence. Furthermore, the worldwide frequency of plane crashes is about once every 2 or 3 days,[1] so there's an excellent chance that there will be a plane crash within 1 day of dreaming about one.

So should Aunt Gladis be thinking of a dear old friend and then a minute later they happen to call her, she'll remark upon it, but if the friend calls her out of the blue when she wasn't thinking of them, she'll not mention the lack of a premonition. The confirmation bias effect is pretty much responsible for all reports of psychic powers, from mediumship to remote viewing. Remarkably, even apparently scientific tests can fall foul of these effects. When someone is asked to exhibit some form of telepathic power and they get it wrong, the statistical context is often brought up in a certain way to say that this sort of incorrect guessing is inevitable due to chance, or that not everyone is psychic. On the other hand, if they happen to guess correctly, the statistical context focuses on the odds that the individual has defied in order to make their prediction. For example, someone correctly guessing several Zener cards in a row has defied 100 to 1 odds for correct guessing and this is hyped even though it is a plain statistical possibility.

I have an 'open mind' about deities too, but I am an atheist. Provide real evidence for the idea, and I'll change my thinking. In the meantime, precognition/clairvoyance/fortune telling remains in the talking snake bag.

Asking questions (even dismissive ones) about anecdotal experiences are the first two steps in the scientific method. []

@kensmile4u -- There is such a thing as a difference between doing science and pseudoscience. Claims for a variety of ESP phenomena have been made for centuries, yet there has never been a successful demonstration of any of them under controlled conditions and, yes, I have heard most of the excuses for this failure to perform.

Regarding the scientific method, observation, means what it says. Observation of a phenomenon upon which we can base our questions. In the case of the paranormal, there has never been a verifiable observation made of the stated phenomena. We get anecdotes, which are neither observation nor evidence. When subjects are scrutinized under controlled circumstances, we observe nothing that is consistent with the anecdotes given. With years of experience and efforts to demonstrate anything akin to ESP and the failure to do so is a pretty strong indicator that serious consideration of the subject is not adequate reason for a scientist to spend his/her time, energy, and money pursuing it. At the moment there is something warranting study, you can rest assured that the community of serious scientists will rise to the cause.

@evidentialist I agree. I've been occupied in the sciences for 30 plus years. Let me know how this experiment fits in your expectations of rising to the cause.

@kensmile4u -- Again, another long stretch. QM does not apply at the macro level. A quantum traveling in time does not equate to a brick doing the same. Now, there is research going on now to pin down quantum activity in macro scale objects, but nothing anywhere near as large as a brick. Thousands of times smaller.

Professor Mika Sillanpää of the Department of Applied Physics and O.V. Lounasmaa laboratory at Aalto University is carrying out basic research on micromechanical resonators measured at ultralow temperatures.

Since everything is built with atoms, macroscopic sized objects should, in principle, follow the counterintuitive quantum laws. Quanta are never directly observed, because the quantum waves in sizable objects usually immediately cancel each other out, leaving behind the everyday world. However, if well protected from noise of the surroundings, tangible objects can retain some quantum features. Professor Mika Sillanpää uses sophisticated cryogenic equipment to cool samples close to -273°C. At that temperature, the energies of single vibrational quanta are not excessively disturbed by random motion of atoms due to temperature. This allows them to observe quantum-mechanical behavior in relatively macroscopic objects such as the micromechanical oscillators that they are working with.

In Sillanpää's work, the micromechanical resonators are housed inside a superconducting cavity resonator. When the two quantum resonators are put together, they begin to exchange quanta, and their resonant motion thus becomes amplified. This is very similar to what happens in a guitar, where the string and the guitars' echo chamber resonate at the same frequency, but instead occurring in the realms of quantum physics. Instead of the musician playing with the guitar string, the energy source is provided by a microwave laser.

So the key here is that quantum actions cancel out instantly unless taken in very small samples under specific conditions. I don't even begin to see how any of that applies to someone having ESP of any kind. In one of my novels I got around this problem by using nanobots for transmit and receive functions. They also provided the translation from electrical activity to understandable communication. Exceptionally limited, but ESP of a sort.

@evidentialist Yes there is a lot of good science happening at near absolute zero. I've been involved in photonics, superconductivity, and some other things i'm not at liberty to speak about. Regarding the rational connection between QM and ESP I have attached the abstract of a paper published in 2014 by Professor and Research Psychologist Dr. Markus Maier. The paper is titled "Feeling the future again: Retroactive avoidance of negative stimuli". Here is the abstract on the paper. It will give you insight into how this resarcher relates QM to ESP. "Abstract"
"During the past decades, several theories have been proposed that relate quantum mechanics to information processing in the human mind. These theories predict that the arrow of time has no direction during unconscious processing states. Across 7 experiments, we tested whether masked negative stimuli presented in the future lead to an unconscious avoidance reaction in the presence. Response registration took place about 500 milliseconds before stimulus onset. In the majority of the studies, the predicted retroactive
influence was found. On average, participants were able to unconsciously avoid negative future outcomes(mean ES = 0.07; Combined Bayes factor = 293). These results are in line with similar precognitive avoidance effects recently reported by Daryl Bem in 2011 (Experiment 2). The reported findings are discussed with regard to the proposed quantum model of the mind. We also highlight the limitations of our research.
Keywords: retrocausation, precognition, quantum mind, consciousness, Orch OR model"


I have. However, I don't think of it as "super natural" or anything like that. I think it is more like the subconscious working stuff out. When it works otu right, it may seem supernatural, but you dont' really notice when things are wrongly predicted and attach no significance to them.. unless your subconscious gets it right.


I think there might be something to this. Everyone has had an experience that can't be easily explained. We have to keep an open mind as we certainly have areas that we don't understand yet.


I think it likely doesn't exist. I've never experienced anything I thought was precognition, though I don't base my judgement merely on personal anecdote but on the fact that nobody has demonstrated this ability with any degree of reliability. I think many people genuinely believe they have future sight, but I'm afraid they've deluded themselves and fall victim to seeing only their hits and ignoring their many misses.


Well I think I might have some precognition. For example every month I have this vision that it will be hard to pay all my bills, and strangely enough it always seems to be true. Perhaps I should try the Vulcan mind meld next....


The Science of Premonitions
by Larry Dossey


Yes. Have had dreams that came true. Sometimes knew something was about to happen, like the time I knew a car accident was imminent and took off my glasses. Alas, every incident can be explained without precognition. And tons of scientific research has never been able to demonstrate precognition. So we can safely say, actual precognition doesn't exist, the future hasn't happened yet and is known to no one.

I agree that Quantum Science is just a toddler but it theoretically makes precognition possible. Recently there are some credible efforts getting empirical results that demand serious attention. Dr. Daryl Bem is one of those ground breaking researchers.

@kensmile4u Yeah, no one has been able to replicate his results. Whi h derrived from shoddy experimental protocols to begin with. I am quite familiar with him. I stand by my statement.

@Druvius Yes I read how Bem's ideas were demoted in 2011. But he responded with new published work in 2014. You may be interested in the linked article which suggest areas of experimental science that might pierce the veil on this phenomenon. []

@kensmile4u Well, I'll check. Always happy to review new evidence.


I will wake up tomorrow. If I don't drink too much.

godef Level 7 Dec 29, 2017

I knew he'd say that.


because of the nature of the quantum universe being predisposed to entanglement the question for me is how can anyone NOT experience precognition

That is so true! The inference is undeniable. Now all we need to do is understand and master retrocausality.


Yes... twice in my life...


yes, but have has so many more imaginings that didn't happen, I guess the odds are that every now and then some come off. The chances increase if you pay a lot of attention to everything.

Very similar to my own conclusions.


I'd like to start off by saying I'm as skeptical of precog as of deism. However, it is one of those things that my story-focused (more bluntly fantasy-focused) mind often snags on. The main problem is that though I've (very rarely) had visions that I knew at the time to be precognitive and all of them came true, it is never something useful, and if it was something you could change you couldn't prove it would have happened had you done nothing. Due partly to this article [] I'm starting to lean toward the idea that we are all in a simulation and precog is a kind of glitch (also deja vu may sometimes be vaguely forgotten precog, but again can't be proven)


Precognition falls into the same category as clairvoyance, ESP, Telekinesis, and many other paranormal (supernatural) notions. It is one of those things that does not belong in a rational mind.

I agree some of the things you mentioned are not science based. But the field of Quantum Science theoretically makes precognition possible. Recently there are some credible efforts getting empirical results that demand serious attention. Dr. Daryl Bem is one of those ground breaking researchers.

Well , here we go. The "rational" mind would actually look at evidence. Not say: these things have to be irrational, because they could not possibly be true. What if they are? I can be quite rational and still hold the thought that all sorts of tings are possible. Telepathy being the simplest of those, and so commonplace that denying it's existence seems .. not very rational if you ask me. 😉

@ZebZaman -- This rational mind does consider evidence. Would you care to provide some real evidence for telepathy? I'd be most interested in seeing it.

@kensmile4u -- First, Dr. Daryl Bem is not a theoretical physicist and I doubt seriously he'd recognize one quantum from the next. So far, no one has been able to reproduce any of his experimental results. Also, all tests and experiments run to date and to the best of my knowledge don't show anything more than what would be expected in random chance.

Please explain how QM gives theoretical credence to precognition.

@evidentialist no, he seem sot be a psychologist. But there are biologists too researching this, thing is, for the hard boiled skeptic, it is totally irrelevant what sort of scientist with which credentials comes up with any evidence for any PSI related things, as soon as he/she does, they cease to be, in your eyes, respectable scientists. So, this debate will never be won by me. No matter what evidence i could quote, quite aside from 100% certain experiences of my own. And others I know.

That is known as anecdotal confirmation bias, @ZebZaman and is not evidence. Any scientist who can demonstrate anything at all in the paranormal realm would be the happiest of Nobel Prize winners. It would be one of the most significant discoveries in human history. Considering that no one has done anything slightly close to creating more than minor interest among a few fringe researchers should be enough to cause substantial doubt in anyone's mind.

@evidentialist I know Bem is a Psychologist. But the study of retrocausality has been around long enough to reach into many areas of research. See the following two links to get theoretical credence. []

@ZebZaman Maybe this will help.


We can all say that we have "seen" the future in our dreams. However, it's totally useless because we never act on it and it happens anyway. The only way we know its "precognition" is because it then actually happens. If we did say "don't get in your car today because you'll have an accident" and they didn't would it be true, or was it never going to happen anyway? Totally pointless.

I had a precognition that I was going to get into an accident and seconds later every detail of that lucid dream became a reality. Fortunately that has happened only once in my life.

@kensmile4u - That's exactly what I mean - precognition is totally useless as it doesn't change anything.

First: not all can say "we have seen the future" in our dreams. A minority have seen tiny glimpses of the future that seem uncannily accurate. And then there are intuitions where you do change things, and you did NOT see yourself fall down the cliff in heavy fog while out in the snow, because you didn't fall, because you listened to that clear voice in your head that said: STOP here. No further. I know three different such stories from three people, one of them being me.

@kensmile4u I had asked my father once to put on his seatbelt, and put my own on, a few km before we got into a pretty bad crash. Without the belts, ... would have been bad for us. I did not "see" anything coming, just .. asked him to put on his belt. Of course, to the hard boiled skeptic, nothing bu coincidence. it's just when things like that pile up in your life, you start to question the coincidence explanation.

@ZebZaman - I reckon that's called common sense, not intuition. Sorry mate.

@GoldenDoll Don't "Sorry mate" me. Of course, it looks like common sense. But I know how often I told my dad to fasten his seat belts ( never, other than that time) . Of course, it could still be a coincidence or common sense, as the roads were icy that morning. So, the jury could well argue in your favour. But it is by a very long shot not the only such experience I have had myself, ,or some one close I trust not making up stuff. I just used it as an example to show the subtle difference between... precognition and intuition.

@GoldenDoll I agree it seems useless at this point in time. It's only useless because we don't understand it. But that can be said for all knowledge. Once we understand and master this phenomenon our existence will become shockingly different.


I think we have a lot of dreams that we do not remember. If we have a precognitive one, it is the occurring of the dreamt-of event that triggers recall of the dream. (Just my opinion.)



My family has a long history of precognitive dreams, however I personally have not experienced them.

Have you given any thought why you don"t and they do? For example are these events tied to a location?

There is a bit of family history for me too. I have had enough such experiences to know it is not imagined.


I dreamed that a board fell over in class when I was in Elementary school, the next day same spot, same board, it fell over. Weird.

I had something like that happen just seconds before the event.


I don't know if it's precognition. But I had an experience. I was in my school and it was about noon. I suddenly muttered the words that my dad has got into an accident. My father had a scooter then. I reached home. I saw my father coming home pushing the scooter. He had met with an accident.



My precognition would be nearly impossible to measure and its usually entirely worthless. I often for no reason focus on a person, thinking "he's about to fall" or "she's going to spill her drink" and it happens.

I'll attribute that at least in part to being a keen observer of human nature, having grown up in an insanely fundamentalist theist family in which many members could go from complacent to violent in an instant. Be that as it may, I consider these events to have rational, natural explanations.

One such of my most dramatic moments of "precognition" was seeing a stack of speakers about to fall over backwards from an open air stage onto the people seeking refuge behind them. A storm was blowing in and the wind was growing rapidly stronger with the coming of a very typical southeastern thunderstorm...directly into the speaker stacks.

I started running in their general direction, yelling at them to move but knowing I was yelling into the wind. Just as was a few feet away from the closest side, that stack fell onto the people and then the other. Luckily there were only minor injuries.

From my initial angle though I could see the stacks beginning to sway and realized those behind them couldn't. From many experiences of these sudden storms, which often create tornadoes, I knew the incoming wind wouldn't just grow steadily stronger but be accompanied by powerful gusts that, yes, could topple those speakers.

As natural as that was I still had someone else close to the event ask, "did you do that?". I just looked at him incredulously, wondering if he was a local theist who knew of me as one of the local unbelieving spawn of satan.

Of course you've had the "NO!" answers of our idiot fringe atheists and "it hasn't been proven yet so it can't be real" replies from our intellectually challenged ones but let's look at one synopsis of those involved in the actual research. I did a little research myself finding such from just one prestigious publication based on the work done at just one prestigious institution.

This light read is enough "science" for me but there are plenty of references to more in-depth studies, some with the actual notes from the experiments themselves.

These, of course, are for those with truly scientific minds. They don't "get by our little neck of the net" often.

Myself, I'm done with wading through volumes of research. I'll instead stay open to the possibilities knowing full well even our best human intellect has yet to advance to the point of understanding it fully.

And yes, if "THE ANSWER" is ever arrived at I'm certain it will be found to be completely natural phenomena.


Thanks for the link. I am familiar with Bem's work which was published in 2011. There was a research paper published in 2014 by DR. Markus Maier a professor at Munich University that duplicated much of Bem's results. In fact Maier sited Bem throughout his paper.


here seems to be a good enough article about that sort of thing :

Thanks for the article. You might like these links as well. []


Yes, but think it was fluke. I have had thousands of dreams and had 99.9999% of them NOT come true.

I have only had one experience that was a completely accurate precognition. But the number of people who have responded to this question with at least one experience is significant.

You might like my explanation right above yours.


I have only had one.

Not me.

@Sarahroo29 There have been a surprising number of responders to this question who have experienced some form of precognition.

I don't believe in paranormal stuff.


Yes, I think I have, but it's only hit and miss.


We recently had a post on dreams that predicted the future. I have had precogniitive dreams.

Thanks I'll have to look the post up. Are your predictions 100% accurate? Or is some interpretation required?

Pretty accurate the few I've had.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:11236
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.