Precognition

G

Giambattista

sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss
Valued Senior Member
Deja vu. Knowing things before they happen.

Happened to me. I have no explanation for it. And NO, for all ye naysayers and would-be naysayers out there, I have not arrived at the conclusion that it was a random chance occurence. That line of reasoning doesn't wash with me.

And NO, for all ye naysayers and would-be naysayers, that is not because I am dumb, or credulous, or that I have somehow abandoned the very religious ten commandments (give or take a few) of the "rule" of scientific method.

It is simply because in the instance that I experienced, the "random chance occurence" explanation is sorely lacking.

This thread is very much about that, and also it is simply a place for people to talk about precognitive events they may have experienced, and to discern between those that are simplistic and relegated to the ordinary, and those that are utterly complicated, and relegated to the EXTRAordinary.

And extraordinary very much includes anything that is not easily, or even complexly explained by science. And this does not exclude any notion that science is unable to explain such occurences. And if "science" and whoever claims that title as their own sees fit to discredit and debunk, then they very much have their own burden to bear. The burden of DISproof. Because that is the claim they make by default. And any claim, according to their own rules, should be proven in order for it to stand.

Do not think for a minute that just because someone claims one thing, that you can simply say that it is unprovable and get away with that little bit of NON-reasoning. If the evidence points in a certain direction, you cannot simply say that it "hasn't been proved by scientific method" and expect to get away with that.

Anyone who wishes to say such a thing is making their OWN CLAIM. Very simply, and do I need to spell that out? Do I need to spell out what a "claim" is?
And in order to counter the offending claim of ESP (extrasensory perception) you must be able to prove that what the person has experienced is indeed owing to more mundane laws (chance, statistics, etc.). Because that is EXACTLY what the naysayers are claiming.

A person says "I knew about a future event that I should not have known about."
The counterclaimant declares "Well, it is YOU, my dear, who are making the claim that you psychically or otherwise knew this event when science says that is impossible, so the burden is on YOU to prove it."

But to persons to whom this has happened, ordinary science does not have the answers. And people are CLAIMING that it does. So, according to their own rules, the counterCLAIMANTS must PROVE that the person making the claim is wrong.

You are making a counterclaim, and this claim must also be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone who has had an instance of precognition or ESP (or anything similar) please talk about it here.

I will not be ignored. And I will not be brushed aside by your very feeble technicalities which prove nothing at all. If you wish to PROVE otherwise, then you very well must do so. But do not quote these man-made laws and philosophies to me aka "Scientific Method" and "Occam's Razor".
This chicken scratch on mere wood pulp will not in the least dissuade me from what I am saying. And do not fault me, by any means. Fault yourself for saying otherwise and being unable to disprove me.

Thank you.
 
yes i have had a very dramatic experience which could inslude precognition....but it is sooo very personal, and still exploring it that i prefer not to cast it before the hyenas of normalcy.......but howeve dramatic or 'non--ramatic an experience one might hiave, it sure rocks you

last night i fastforewarded tis video tape, and i got the bit of tis docu i'd dont a while back. it was the famous thing about superstrings that was presented last year?...rememberrrrr?
anyhow the bit i happened upon was the presented showing wid snazzy graphics how 'everything is made of teeese little strings of energy'.....then he analogized the size of his home Manhattan to the size of 'spacetime' and then we see a picof Einstein and how he showed something veeery unusial. then we seen this model of Manhattan bend on itself , right.....now tis presenter now has gotten in a yelloe NYC cab, and as we are seeing him travelling AND this ideogram, we are told there may be faster routes thru spce time. then he and taxi are whished down tis 'wormhole'....gettng to teri destimation much swifter than the usual linear route?

so has this someting to do with precognition?

as i was watching the greaphics of tisdemonstatraion i was thining of reality being LIKE....likepppsome kind of very very veeeeeeeeery advanced computer thingy. but , and this is really important. it is NOT a computer simulation. what we--us little monkeyts try and do is--and tis has been shown througout te history of ideas in scientific endavour, and in partriarchal religion issss, try nd use the limits of our state of the art to try and pin down what reality is...ok. it may serve some help. but lets us deeply remember. the map AINT the territory?

so hows what i said relate to precognition? well if science is teorizing about thisweirdenss of 'outside' reality---when we bring CONSCIOUSNESSinto the equation is meaning that spacetime can loop the loop and sometimes some of us can see the 'future'. tho i wanna stress, the future is not set in stone. for reality is flexible. it is not absolutely determinstistic....there is aliveness, spontaniety. so any 'prediction' is not set-in-stone is what i am implying
 
Was this person Michio Kaku, by chance?

Nonetheless, an omega point, according to one person, lies ahead in the "temporal dimension(s)", and throws off reflections of itself into the past, and we catch those reflections. With our "eyeballs" or otherwise.

Every once in awhile, there is a very strong channel between us and the point, whatever it may be, and it is so strong and so clear that we see certain things before they happen.

For what it's worth.

I hope the naysayers do their very worst. Because they haven't convinced me thusfar, and they will continue NOT to convince me, because their arguments in themselves are full of conjecture. And little substance.
 
And a special thank you to YOU Duendy for being the first person to answer my post.
 
duendy said:
tho i wanna stress, the future is not set in stone. for reality is flexible. it is not absolutely determinstistic....there is aliveness, spontaniety. so any 'prediction' is not set-in-stone is what i am implying
Click to expand...

Though, in my case, the future WAS set in stone, much to my astonishment. And I knew what the inscription in the stone read before I even encountered the stone.
 
Giambattista said:
Was this person Michio Kaku, by chance?

Nonetheless, an omega point, according to one person, lies ahead in the "temporal dimension(s)", and throws off reflections of itself into the past, and we catch those reflections. With our "eyeballs" or otherwise.

Every once in awhile, there is a very strong channel between us and the point, whatever it may be, and it is so strong and so clear that we see certain things before they happen.

For what it's worth.

I hope the naysayers do their very worst. Because they haven't convinced me thusfar, and they will continue NOT to convince me, because their arguments in themselves are full of conjecture. And little substance.
Click to expand...
no helookslike a typical Jewish New Yorker
 
duendy said:
no helookslike a typical Jewish New Yorker
Click to expand...

Typical Jewish New Yorker? Not a displaced Japanese theoretical physicist?

Well, the person I mentioned does act as a professor at a New York university. And he talks often of other dimensions, and even wormholes and time-travel.

I admit that my interest in such things wanes to the point of only knowing the rudiments, so I cannot speak about his theories any further than face value. Theories is all that anyone has regarding those subjects. Amen.

Never seen the show you're talking about, obviously.
 
hmm
should we not touch on the concept of time?
speculations of
theories of

which is basically what precognition is about
knowledge or an idea of an event in the future and perhaps the future per se

what does science say?
 
The perception of deja vu is very known, very real, and can be reproduced. To date, nobody has demonstrated any ability to percieve the future (which sounds like the core assertion being made). Please, present any evidence that you may have.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
The perception of deja vu is very known, very real, and can be reproduced. To date, nobody has demonstrated any ability to percieve the future (which sounds like the core assertion being made). Please, present any evidence that you may have.
Click to expand...
hah ah PER fect. couldn't have written it more predictably myself...
 
Difficult to say "I believe" when he hasn't told us much of what he's done ;)
 
Crunchy Cat said:
If you're getting used to that process of thinking then why not employ it?
Click to expand...
ok...wait a mo. let me put the coin in the old rusty slot....
'c;ick...ikc...donk--
there is no proof anwhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anywhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anwhere
show me the evid..clcuk...kuk/"
 
duendy said:
ok...wait a mo. let me put the coin in the old rusty slot....
'c;ick...ikc...donk--
there is no proof anwhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anywhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anwhere
show me the evid..clcuk...kuk/"
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be that wordy. How about "present the evidence". Much shorter, simpler, etc.
 
I believe that precognition is a skill and like other skills you have to pay attention and learn what it means.
It is sort of like the first time you smelled smoke. You knew it was a different smell than others but you did not know what it meant the first time you smelled it. With experience some can tell not only that something is burning but what is burning (a wood fire versus an electrical fire).
By paying attention to what you are sensing you begin to appreciate the difference between a random thought and a "leap in consciousness".
 
I am not sure that Deja vu is actually precognition.....It is not really a prediction but the realisation that a prediction has eventuated. If you can consciously predict a future event and then experinece that predicted event then I would call that precognition. Deja vu seems to come in close but seems to be missing the vital predictive part before it can be considered as precognition. It begs the question; can one predict a deja vu event before it happens?

any way just some thoughts.... :)

A thought I had about this deja vu was:
"The closer you are to your greater destiny the more often deja vu occurs. It is like you realise you are following a greater path and that you are in the right place at the right time. An awareness of a sychronistic concordance"
 
Last edited:
duendy said:
ok...wait a mo. let me put the coin in the old rusty slot....
'c;ick...ikc...donk--
there is no proof anwhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anywhere
show me the evidence

there is no proof anwhere
show me the evid..clcuk...kuk/"
Click to expand...
Is there something wrong with asking for evidence duendy?

I have seen you demand evidence a few times by the way.
 
shaman_ said:
Is there something wrong with asking for evidence duendy?

I have seen you demand evidence a few times by the way.
Click to expand...
hey stranger...wheres ya been hidin?
no i am not anti-evidence...when its APPROPRIATE
butthe whole reason i did that prody bit is cause i see tis dead reaction coming from path. skeps. ......let me explain it out:

they assume--have he audacity and arrogance and ignore-ance to assume that tere is no proof of abc....how thew hell do THEY know. they are just mechanically claiming it

next tey ask for evidence when really the asking forit is just another ploy to not to have to bother to think, explore, wonder, and UNDERSTANDthe limitations of their clicidy click reponses

i am afriad you become the machinery of your mechanical philosophy, andit shows, but you dont see it
 
duendy said:
hey stranger...wheres ya been hidin?
Click to expand...
Been busy lately so I have been reading but not posting.

duendy said:
no i am not anti-evidence...when its APPROPRIATE
Click to expand...
Ok but where is it not appropriate? We are talking about amazing powers here. In a world with hoaxers, bad science and people who are deluded (perhaps we all delude ourselves at times) asking for some evidence is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps you hate it when it is asked for because it is a reminder that the glaring lack of evidence is a blow to the credibility of the phenomenon.
duendy said:
butthe whole reason i did that prody bit is cause i see tis dead reaction coming from path. skeps. ......let me explain it out:

they assume--have he audacity and arrogance and ignore-ance to assume that tere is no proof of abc....how thew hell do THEY know. they are just mechanically claiming it
Click to expand...
The evidence these evil sceptics have seen so far doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps they should end with "from what I have seen".

duendy said:
next tey ask for evidence when really the asking forit is just another ploy to not to have to bother to think, explore, wonder, and UNDERSTANDthe limitations of their clicidy click reponses
Click to expand...
To believe in precognition without evidence would naive and foolish duendy. Then you are not bothering to think.

Sceptics are just as open to exploration they just want to explore things that are real.

Also I believe that there is just as much sense of wonder in the world of a sceptic. In fact they find wonder in the world around us without having to believe in magical abilities, ghosts ect.

duendy said:
i am afriad you become the machinery of your mechanical philosophy, andit shows, but you dont see it
Click to expand...
I have no mechanical philosophy duendy I am just not as quick to believe in the fantastic as you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top