Mother's premonition of her sons death...

Please note that the law of large numbers refers to the results of a large number of trials (that the results will convergence on the expected values), and isn't really relevant as to whether an individual event is probable or improbable, so I don't think it's use to dismiss an uncanny match (like in the Shermer article) is valid.

Some strong premonitions also show an uncanny match. But parapsychology research has shown that at least some uncanny matches happen in the absence of anything psi-like. I'm interested in finding a way to distinguish between strong premonitions which are due to something psi-like and those which are not. Telling stories about strong premonitions with and without uncanny matches may help with this.

Linda

Similar in the sense that both were examples of strong premonitions. I have an interest in strong premonitions independently of whether or not there are subsequent events/experiences which may or may not show an uncanny match to the premonition. One criteria I've been playing with, to identify strong premonitions, is whether they are strong enough to alter behavior - for example, phone calls were made (as in these cases) or someone doesn't get on a plane. 

Linda

Yes, I think that is a reasonable proxy to consider in an attempt to measure the strength of a persons feeling/motivations, at least in the absence of anything better.

@offthechain225 also correctly identifies that ones thoughts which are real, may be objective, or may not be objective. They may for example be thoughts based strongly on internal ego or anxiety, or thoughts based on external observations.

OK... a bit deep... very rough... and probably nobody will even have a clue about what I'm going on about. But as far as my understanding goes at present, this is my thinking...

I think that thoughts (spatio temporal patterns of activation of the brains existing networks) add up in the present. Not just adding up matching thoughts (matching patterns of activation's) from the past, but also adding up matching patterns from the future.

So that with an existing physical brain network, combined with a large number of a particular type of thoughts (matching patterns of activation) in the future. There is a higher probability of you evolving towards these future patterns. And a higher probability of actually stumbling across the particular thoughts themselves under certain conditions (see below during sleep).

Thoughts (patterns of activation) get summed across spacetime, and the more matching activation patterns that are summed, the greater the strength of ones emotion and feelings. Thus the greater the strength of ones emotion or feeling, the greater the number of matching patterns of activation one is summing up in the present.

During sleep, we go through cycles of listening for patterns of activation (quiet), and broadcasting patterns of activation (active), this cycling process during sleep seems to act a bit like a filter, during which the brains physical networks are created/reinforced to match the strength of summed thoughts (matching patterns of activation) during the cycled listening and broadcasting process.

The reduction in wakeful sensory patterns of network activation during sleep are vital for this process. Otherwise these wakeful sensory patterns would interfere with the listening/broadcasting cycles. But this also means that if the necessary physical networks already exist, then during this sleep process, ones brain may become quiet enough to stumble across ones future thoughts, particularly if in the future there are more of a certain matching pattern of activation. Which might result in emotions or feelings of greater strength.

One might think of these two different states, active wakefulness, and the listening cycle during sleep, a bit like a zoom lens on a camera. During wakefulness the camera is zoomed in and observing a smaller area of space in more detail. Where as during a listening cycle when asleep, the camera is zoomed out, and observing a larger area of space, but in less detail. So that if a repetitive pattern is present during the 'zoomed out' listening cycle when asleep, this repetitive pattern may become discernible, even though it is in the future.

Thank you for an intelligent and very well thought out response Max. The quality of the postings on this forum prompted me to join. I am on a personal journey to learn the field of parapsychology, and still have much to learn. You have provided an amazing glimpse into the workings of the sub-conscious mind. (I almost prefer to say para-conscious, because the word sub almost seems inappropriate). Our awake conscious mind works at such a low level, it seems reasonable the event based objectivity would create an imprint into a higher level mind. We only see in 3 dimensions, we experience a very limited range of emotions, we are sensitive to heat and cold. In the deeper mind, the sky is almost always the limit. The only exception is the interference from the conscious mind. If I understand your post correctly, you stated the pre-cognition can indeed occur under certain circumstances. I would agree. I have done some research regarding repeatability, and find it to be baseless. Anomalies such as what may have occurred to this woman in regards to her son should be looked into as valid, as opposed to writing it off simply because it cannot be duplicated. Every situation is special, for lack of a better word. Again, your post was appreciated and I look forward to seeing more.

Thank you for an intelligent and very well thought out response Max. The quality of the postings on this forum prompted me to join. I am on a personal journey to learn the field of parapsychology, and still have much to learn. You have provided an amazing glimpse into the workings of the sub-conscious mind. (I almost prefer to say para-conscious, because the word sub almost seems inappropriate). Our awake conscious mind works at such a low level, it seems reasonable the event based objectivity would create an imprint into a higher level mind. We only see in 3 dimensions, we experience a very limited range of emotions, we are sensitive to heat and cold. In the deeper mind, the sky is almost always the limit. The only exception is the interference from the conscious mind. If I understand your post correctly, you stated the pre-cognition can indeed occur under certain circumstances. I would agree. I have done some research regarding repeatability, and find it to be baseless. Anomalies such as what may have occurred to this woman in regards to her son should be looked into as valid, as opposed to writing it off simply because it cannot be duplicated. Every situation is special, for lack of a better word. Again, your post was appreciated and I look forward to seeing more.

Thanks for the link. I’ll give that a read when I get more time.

I don't know why Michael Shermer calls this the law of large numbers in the article you link to. The law of large numbers is far more specific, and relates to the convergence of the average of a large sample to the true average of the population being sampled, as the size of the sample becomes larger.

This thread on Skeptiko finally enlightened me about why people sometimes misuse the term "law of large numbers":
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/an...oday.4380/

As I mentioned before, the law of large numbers is a quite specific principle in statistics. An example of its application is that if you have a series of coin tosses, the more tosses there are, the closer the percentage of heads will get to 50%.

It seems that two statisticians coined another principle, known as "the law of truly large numbers" (or "very large numbers"). This states that if your sample is large enough, it will include events that viewed individually would be unlikely to occur. That's the principle that is used to argue against the significance of anecdotal evidence about unusual events. But the word "truly/very" often gets omitted, as it did in the title of that Skeptiko thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tru...ge_numbers

This thread on Skeptiko finally enlightened me about why people sometimes misuse the term "law of large numbers":
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/an...oday.4380/

As I mentioned before, the law of large numbers is a quite specific principle in statistics. An example of its application is that if you have a series of coin tosses, the more tosses there are, the closer the percentage of heads will get to 50%.

It seems that two statisticians coined another principle, known as "the law of truly large numbers" (or "very large numbers"). This states that if your sample is large enough, it will include events that viewed individually would be unlikely to occur. That's the principle that is used to argue against the significance of anecdotal evidence about unusual events. But the word "truly/very" often gets omitted, as it did in the title of that Skeptiko thread:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_tru...ge_numbers

I thought this was an interesting illustration of the "law of truly large numbers." Mysterious Universe has an article on "The Mysterious Village Where Only Girls Are Born":
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/01/t...-are-born/

In fact the Mysterious Village (in Poland) is very small, and what has happened there is that the last 12 babies born have all been girls. The article quotes Craig Anderson of Glasgow University, who points out that on the assumption that births are independent with a 50:50 chance of being male/female, even among larger settlements one would expect there to be about 100 in the world where this was true.

I thought this was an interesting illustration of the "law of truly large numbers." Mysterious Universe has an article on "The Mysterious Village Where Only Girls Are Born":
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2020/01/t...-are-born/

In fact the Mysterious Village (in Poland) is very small, and what has happened there is that the last 12 babies born have all been girls. The article quotes Craig Anderson of Glasgow University, who points out that on the assumption that births are independent with a 50:50 chance of being male/female, even among larger settlements one would expect there to be about 100 in the world where this was true.

Thanks Chris. reminds me a little of the constant misapplication of Occam’s razor by some.

Thanks Chris. reminds me a little of the constant misapplication of Occam’s razor by some.

Right, but the article suggests that the shortage of girls goes further back in time, so the probability of the entire anomaly would be quite a bit smaller than the calculated figure.

David