Jan 17, 2011 -- 9:39PM, solfeggio wrote:

Erey -

Humans are animals.  We're all animals.  And, although it is true that some humans do try to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, what makes you think that nonhuman animals don't try to do the same?

Just because your cat cannot speak English or take up a pencil or pen and write a paper explaining quantum theory, does not mean that your cat is not thinking of these or similar things.  Or communing with cats that have gone before, sensing your thoughts, or even having an idea of what is going to transpire in his/her life the next day.

In reality, none of knows for sure what our dog or cat or guinea pig or even our goldfish is thinking!  But what we do know for sure is that ethology has shown us that other species do indeed have a lot more going on inside their heads than we ever imagined.

Well Solfelgio we certainly don't seem to have any way to determine that they do.  I am not trying to short shift animals.  I really don't think my dogs are contemplating quatum theory, I am just not going to go there.  But maybe they do think about tomorrow on some level or try to guess my moods and mannerisms and what my being going on in my head.  Although not being human they are going be at a disadvantage in doin so.  People have a hard enough time reading each other's thoughts, I think a pet would be at a disadvantage in trying to read a human's thought. 

Jan 17, 2011 -- 9:12PM, Erey wrote:

What sort of separates the humans from the animals is that humans are always trying to read other people's minds or see into the future.  we don't really see this in the animal kingdom.

We ARE part of the "animal kingdom." We ARE animals, so we do see what you believe to be attempts to read the minds of other animals. Ever watch a zebra? They are constantly trying to read the minds of the lions following them around.

We read people's minds all the time and don't think anything of it, only we are not infaliable at it.  We make alot of mistakes in reading other's minds and projecting the future.  But we do it, on a daily basis.

That is not the kind of mind reading and predicting that the believers in ESP are trying to claim.

Jan 17, 2011 -- 9:51PM, Erey wrote:

Jan 17, 2011 -- 9:39PM, solfeggio wrote:

Erey -

Humans are animals.  We're all animals.  And, although it is true that some humans do try to puzzle out the mysteries of the universe, what makes you think that nonhuman animals don't try to do the same?

Just because your cat cannot speak English or take up a pencil or pen and write a paper explaining quantum theory, does not mean that your cat is not thinking of these or similar things.  Or communing with cats that have gone before, sensing your thoughts, or even having an idea of what is going to transpire in his/her life the next day.

In reality, none of knows for sure what our dog or cat or guinea pig or even our goldfish is thinking!  But what we do know for sure is that ethology has shown us that other species do indeed have a lot more going on inside their heads than we ever imagined.

Well Solfelgio we certainly don't seem to have any way to determine that they do.  I am not trying to short shift animals.  I really don't think my dogs are contemplating quatum theory, I am just not going to go there.  But maybe they do think about tomorrow on some level or try to guess my moods and mannerisms and what my being going on in my head.  Although not being human they are going be at a disadvantage in doin so.  People have a hard enough time reading each other's thoughts, I think a pet would be at a disadvantage in trying to read a human's thought. 

Here's a summary of what dogs probably think --

"This is fun, this is fun, this is fun.... I'm bored. This is fun, this is fun...I gotta pooooooooop! This is fun. I'm hungry. This is fun, this is fun... oh boy, a squirrel!!!! This is fun, this is fun. I'm tired."

What cats think --

"When are these fools going to realize the Universe revolves around me?"

Jan 12, 2011 -- 11:49PM, mountain_man wrote:

For those interested in the science and statistics, here (for some links: again - as they were linked in the NYT article as well) the relevant texts:

here a link to Daryl Bem's original study:
      www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf

here a critique of the statistical techniques used, by some colleagues from Amsterdam:
      www.ruudwetzels.com/articles/Wagenmakers...

here another crtique by Jeff Rouder and Richard Morey:
      pcl.missouri.edu/sites/default/files/rou...

and here a failed replication attempt by Jeff Galak and Leif Nelson:
      papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract...

On a personal note, I don't think this kind of stuff is "fascinating" at all. Bem's strategy of mixing primeval pornographic motivation with esoteric future-knowing is too similar in its ingredients to Marion Zimmer Bradley type new age fuzziness to have any positive connotation for me.

www.dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdfhttp://www....

Thanks for the links. Interesting reading certainly, whatever one's take on the science.