Where Can I Watch Beef 4 For Free

translation by Erica Nardi Dellago and Clea

An excellent paper that presents some new and exciting research on consciousness.
Stephan A. Schwartz

CASSANDRA Vieten, Director of Research at the Institute of Noetic Sciences - The Huffington Post

Well readers, later in this article, I will use an example that might relate to a garden, a sailboat, a running man or a train. Can you guess what exactly?

According to an article published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), Daryl Bem, Cornell professor of psychology, indicates that you can do it, more than 25 percent of the time on average expected by chance.

The article, titled "Feeling the future: experimental evidence of anomalous influences on perception and their retroactive effect," presents evidence from nine trials involving over 1,000 subjects and suggests that events in the future could influence the events in the past - a concept known as "retrocausality.

In some experiments, the students were able to predict future events at levels precision much higher than would be expected by chance. In other cases, events in the future seem to have influenced those of the past, like the one in which the repetition of a word list has increased the memory of those same words, with the particularity that the test took place only after the memory test.

As Research Director of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where, among other things, we analyze the experiences that appear to transcend the usual boundaries of time or space (generically called experience "psi") I have already received a large number of comments and questions concerning the pre-press article that is running.
The comments range from "Wow, great!" to "You can not - there must be some mistake."

But the majority of respondents are "So what? This is nothing new. Have already been published hundreds of articles in dozens of academic journals that relate to significant results on experiments on psi. What's so important? "

So what makes this book worthy of particular note? To begin with, Bem is a psychologist all: it is one of the leading psychologists in the world ( probably è stato citato in uno dei 101 testi di psicologia che hai scritto, e probabilmente ne è co-autore). 

E JPSP non è una rivista qualsiasi ma si trova al top delle riviste di psicologia; l’articolo, considerata la premessa, è stato sottoposto a un rigoroso esame dei revisori (in cui i colleghi di scienze valutano l'articolo e decidono se è degno di essere pubblicato).

Inoltre, Bem ha volutamente adottato protocolli di ricerca benaccetti negli studi, anche se con alcuni risvolti chiave, facili e replicabili (non richiedono una quantità di attrezzature speciali, e hanno analisi semplici).

Anche così, resta da vedere se la grande comunità scientifica presterà attenzione a questo studio.

Il che pone la questione: perché la letteratura esistente sui fenomeni “psi” viene regolarmente respinta dalla comunità scientifica e di fatto ignorata all'interno della più ampia comunità accademica?

Come dice in proposito il giornalista scientifico Jonah Lehrer: "Sono stati dimostrati decine di volte, spesso da scienziati di buona reputazione ... Perché, allora, gli scienziati seri respingono the possibility of "psi"? Why do rational people continue to believe that parapsychology is nonsense? Because these exciting results have consistently failed the test of replication. "

Such statements are crazy some of my colleagues, which indicate a large amount of literature in which the experiments" psi ", which involved dozens of scientists independent and thousands of people have been replicated many times for decades, being published in journals based on an assessment of scientific work by the auditors.

Yet, despite statistical significance, the majority of the scientific community largely rejected the concept of "psi" as frivolous, artificial, non-replicable, or effects so minimal as to be useless - no matter how respectable is the investigator or prestige of his association .

Worse yet, the skeptics accuse researchers "psi" to be completely fraudulent, or in good faith but deluded. The young scientists are regularly advised to stay away dall'ATF (anti-factor role, which would not allow them to get a permanent job, or lose it), associated with those interests.
E 'known as by eminent scientists, including Nobel laureates, has been revoked an invitation to lecture at a time when it was discovered their interest in the "psi".

Even religious scholars, working to examine the spiritual aspects of human experience, have problems with the "psi".

With regard to the size of the effect, if you look at the overall results of many studies, yes, the effects of "psi" are statistically significant, albeit limited.

However, a double standard is applied to the potential importance of small effects.

effect sizes reported in the study by Bem and in numerous studies "psi" past were often much larger than the size of the effect associated with many scientific facts welcome, such as taking aspirin for prevent heart attacks, or tamoxifen against the risk of blood clots.

It 'important to remember - even if we agree that "size matters" and that these effects are almost always small - that, in light of what is generally know how the world works, peek into the future, even minimally, should be completely impossible.

time is supposed to go only one way.

It is assumed that the perception is limited to past or present, and only those phenomena immediately and locally accessible by our five senses.
When you look at exceptions to these rules, especially in controlled laboratory conditions, they deserve a closer look.

Take the ride of a mile in four minutes "

If we as scientists had studied thousands of people in the '50s, we would have concluded that running a mile in four minutes was not humanly possible. Over time, however, it was discovered that some people could actually do it - an extremely small to be considered reliable, but these abnormalities showed that it was indeed possible.

Now we know that not only run a mile in four minutes is possible, but even the standard for professional middle distance runners (for those of you more careful, as this was the man with running).

Perhaps the most often cited maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" should be accompanied by a counter-maxim "extraordinary anomalies deserve special attention."

For example, a new drug for depression that brought some relief in one case out of 100 may not be worth a second thought, but if it is claimed that a new drug has cured AIDS in a case 100, which justifies further investigation.

When the evidence is against the odds before, would require special attention, not an automatic waiver unjustified.

In response, as noted above, the defenders of the "psi" claim that there have been several replicas - often more numerous than many other "facts" that are scientifically supported data rates. In fact, scientists who are familiar with this area of \u200b\u200bresearch studies to see how smart Bem conceptual replicas placed on a large body of previous work.

These scientists are now going beyond the idea of \u200b\u200bthe mere existence of these effects and proceeding in the study of conditions which could be promoted (individual traits related, training, genetics?).

In small and under-funded laboratories around the world, scientists are working to improve projects, measurement and research methods to better study the factor "psi".

It is also developing an awareness that developing a good experiment and replicate it to infinity could not be easier. An article published in the issue of The New Yorker on December 13, 2010 highlights a phenomenon well known to scientists, not only in the phenomena of "psi", but in many disciplines: the early experiments may show very strong results, but when repeated over and over again, the effects may diminish. Gamblers might recognize this phenomenon as "beginner's luck."

course this is not true for all natural phenomena.
When you cast a stone, it will head towards the ground each time. But for more complex phenomena, it may be necessary to deal with the "decline effect", together with the effects of observation and other complexities of design and measurement.

This means that the effects are not real and that these matters are inherently "unscientific" and should not be studied? Of course not. Recall that in the early 19th century, Faraday It took many years to prove the existence of electromagnetism and his colleagues, and in spite of everything, did not live to see validated his theory (the theory of Faraday argued that the electromagnetic forces extend across the empty space around a conductor).

Many research topics are very complex, and require decades of analysis and all kinds of new measures, methods, controls and technologies to be explored properly.

Il cancro rimane un profondo mistero, nonostante gli sforzi di decine di migliaia di scienziati e miliardi di dollari spesi alla ricerca di una cura. Il sequenziamento del genoma umano è stata un’impresa vasta e complessa. Anche i farmaci testati per il trattamento della depressione, su cui si basa un’industria multi-miliardaria, alla fine vengono messi in discussione come non più efficaci di un placebo.

A meno che l'oggetto di studio non sia estremamente semplice, la scienza è per lo più un percorso lungo, tortuoso, scrupoloso, incrementale e stimolante.

I problemi con le oscillanti dimensioni del risultato, gli effetti degli sperimentatori, il trovare controlli adeguati e così via... sono tutti inerenti allo studio di fenomeni con interazioni complesse e meccanismi ancora poco compresi.
Quindi non penso che la resistenza alle prove del fattore “psi” si possa attribuire a questo; né si può incolpare la complessità delle misurazioni, le difficoltà di replica, o anche la sfida dell’abbattere una teoria sottostante.

Penso si tratti della paura che alcune delle nostre adorate credenze possano essere sbagliate, su come funziona il mondo e su chi e cosa siamo.

On a deeper level, there may be a collective stress disorder, and prolonged post-traumatic, resulting from that period of human history in which the trust with blind faith in supernatural explanations of reality led to a very dark , where the priests determined what was true, and rational thought and systematic observation were prohibited.

Bem's article and the body of literature supporting it, serious discussions on analyzing retrocausality in physics, suggest that in human experience that might actually be possible.

But the real value of the article has been back on the conversation factor "psi" again in the arena of intelligent debate in a public forum, where it deserves to be. Whilst the
understandable and diplomatic response to the admixture of science and all that is considered supernatural - how to perceive the future or the impact of consciousness on physical systems - it's been a long period of caution, certainly in the 21st century we can have confidence in our ability to examine these issues in an intelligent manner without losing his head.

A similar analysis could lead to revisions radicals in our understanding of how the world works and our human potential.

Source Link

From: Link