Precognition

[duendy]

Been busy lately so I have been reading but not posting.

me)))reading what?

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.

me))))))yes there are hoaxers, charalatans. so i can understand your fear about that.....o and of course along with them com dupes, gullibles. yip. BUT reardless of that, i am meaning that the demand for solid evidence is not always appropriate. you have to use your own intuition to realize when it is and hen not. from my experience of 'your camp' it seems to me you switch OFF. if there's no 'evidence' you cease to wonder....? or investigate in OTHER ways, which is what i mean by mecahanical. you'll also have a very dis-trustng nature. sos anyone who does report strange experince MUSt be a hoaxer of liar etc so as to justify your dismisive attitude to yourselves

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".

me)))when a scetic claims ' there is noproof whatsoever for ' suc and such a phenemena, theys talkin outta their arse. how te hepll do they know all that. is they computer. it is an empty, arrogant, and presumptios statement which means nothing.


To believe in precognition without evidence would naive and foolish duendy. Then you are not bothering to think.

me))say your mum told you she had had a precog experience. i am sure you trust your mum? how would you react? would you ask her for evidence? if so, what kind of evidence?...

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

me)))))but their criteria--as i am seeing it--is materialistic,and limited

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.

me)))so do 'we'!


I have no mechanical philosophy duendy I am just not as quick to believe in the fantastic as you are.

see what you do. you assume you knpw what i do. like the others you classify into little boxes. 'we' = 'the believers' right?.....wrong. we are , well i am in a state of wondering about. not beliving. when you believe you have a conclusion, yeah?
whereas i see you'll yu go 'there is NO proof phenomenon you speakof exists---BAM!---present your evidence---BAM!!. aint got 'any'??--BAM???!. it is all whacko, and your a liar, a woo woo' and all the other hostile shite

now. do you see the distinction in approach...?

 

[Zephyr]

...and all the other hostile shite

now. do you see the distinction in approach...?

Not really. You seem to favour a bit of sarcams yourself

hah ah PER fect. couldn't have written it more predictably myself...

 

[duendy]

Not really. You seem to favour a bit of sarcams yourself

you've missed the point. i am not perfect, and dont wanna be. its not about that it's about how we interact with people who report stuff we dont understand...

if we take the attitude i've experienced here, and start callin names, for me that defeats a more subtle approach where real learning can begin to flower....if you let nothe know you dont trust them they will be defensive obviously.......so you are not helping a sense of exploration abot this if you mechanically :
1. claim there exists no proof whatsoever of what the speak of, and
2. inerrogate them to present evidence....when 'evidence' , as in soild is not appropriate right then or maybe never, but listening TO them IS

 

[Zephyr]

I agree that name calling is unnecessary ... but after hearing what someone says, it's fair to say "I disagree, because...", surely? Or to point out explanations they may not have considered?

 

[duendy]

I agree that name calling is unnecessary ... but after hearing what someone says, it's fair to say "I disagree, because...", surely? Or to point out explanations they may not have considered?

true...very true, but...that can get ruddy boring an all...

 

[Giambattista]

To the skeptical persons, a clarification!

I wasn't actually meaning to say that I had deja vu, and that I considered it precognition.

I mentioned deja vu, because it felt like it (had it a number of times in my life), but instead of the impression of instant precognition or the feeling of having been there, done that before, this was KNOWING something that was going to happen soon, but not at that exact time. This was not an everyday event either. It was not something I would or could have expected, and when it DID happen an hour later, I was rather dumbfounded about how I could have known ahead of time that exact event.

That happened more than once.

This was not simply deja vu, but I mentioned it briefly because it was similar in a way.

I will explain in greater detail if one cares for me to do so.

 

[Giambattista]

Actually, I already did not too long ago in the Disclosure Project thread.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I will explain in greater detail if one cares for me to do so.

Sure. It would be interesting to hear the details about it. It probably makes sense to post it here (we can get lost in that other thread)

 

[shaman_]

me)))reading what?

I mean I have been reading the posts but not posting. Lurking.

me))))))yes there are hoaxers, charalatans. so i can understand your fear about that.....o and of course along with them com dupes, gullibles. yip. BUT reardless of that, i am meaning that the demand for solid evidence is not always appropriate.

Well then you have a belief based on faith. No thanks.

you have to use your own intuition to realize when it is and hen not.

Intuition is good but cannot always be relied on.

from my experience of 'your camp' it seems to me you switch OFF. if there's no 'evidence' you cease to wonder....? or investigate in OTHER ways, which is what i mean by mecahanical.

No I become sceptical. There is nothing wrong with that considering the reasons desribed above. Also, there must be some wonder as this whole discussion is about sceptics asking for evidence..

you'll also have a very dis-trustng nature. sos anyone who does report strange experince MUSt be a hoaxer of liar etc so as to justify your dismisive attitude to yourselves

No I look at the evidence presented.

me)))when a scetic claims ' there is noproof whatsoever for ' suc and such a phenemena, theys talkin outta their arse. how te hepll do they know all that. is they computer. it is an empty, arrogant, and presumptios statement which means nothing.

Clearly the 'proof' seen so far does not stand up to scrutiny.

me))say your mum told you she had had a precog experience. i am sure you trust your mum? how would you react? would you ask her for evidence? if so, what kind of evidence?...

I would ask her to explain the experience with as much detail as possible. That would have to be the evidence. Interestingly my mother had a dream many years ago that something happened to me(probably death) while scuba diving. I don't think I have been scuba diving since then (I haven't avoided it on purpose).

me)))))but their criteria--as i am seeing it--is materialistic,and limited

The criteria is of a higher standard.

see what you do. you assume you knpw what i do. like the others you classify into little boxes. 'we' = 'the believers' right?.....wrong. we are , well i am in a state of wondering about. not beliving. when you believe you have a conclusion, yeah?

Perhaps but you are as guilty of classifying people into boxes as anyone duendy. Anyone who follows the process of scientific method or displays any scepticism is a cold, mechanical materialist... This is simply not true.

whereas i see you'll yu go 'there is NO proof phenomenon you speakof exists---BAM!---present your evidence---BAM!!. aint got 'any'??--BAM???!. it is all whacko, and your a liar, a woo woo' and all the other hostile shite

now. do you see the distinction in approach...?

No. You constantly repeat that sceptics insult and are hostile to anyone who has had an experience. That certainly may be true sometimes but not all the time. Science and scepticism have nothing to do with insults.

 

[duendy]

I mean I have been reading the posts but not posting. Lurking.
Well then you have a belief based on faith. No thanks.

me)))))no. not based on faith, as in faith in some dogma. but rather inference....a kind of state of wonder. not a state of 'it is false till some materialistic explanation explains it which will make me feel safe and comfortable' which is how i usually feel where you lot is comin from

Intuition is good but cannot always be relied on

me)))).when would you say it was good then??

No I become sceptical. There is nothing wrong with that considering the reasons desribed above. Also, there must be some wonder as this whole discussion is about sceptics asking for evidence..
No I look at the evidence presented.
Clearly the 'proof' seen so far does not stand up to scrutiny.

me))no. i was on about when some sceptic aserts tht there is no known proff for xyz. how do they KNOW? dont ya get me?

I would ask her to explain the experience with as much detail as possible. That would have to be the evidence. Interestingly my mother had a dream many years ago that something happened to me(probably death) while scuba diving. I don't think I have been scuba diving since then (I haven't avoided it on purpose).

me)))how do you know you haven't avoided it on purpose?

The criteria is of a higher standard.

me))))well tis is what you materialists assume, and is your arrogance, and justifies how you insult peoples who are not as 'sure' as you.

Perhaps but you are as guilty of classifying people into boxes as anyone duendy. Anyone who follows the process of scientific method or displays any scepticism is a cold, mechanical materialist... This is simply not true.
No. You constantly repeat that sceptics insult and are hostile to anyone who has had an experience. That certainly may be true sometimes but not all the time.

me))hah..well darlin, it seems 'all the time' ere

Science and scepticism have nothing to do with insults.

true. looks good on paper that sentiment dunnit?

 

[shaman_]

ah duendy we have the same discussions in every thread.

me)))))no. not based on faith, as in faith in some dogma. but rather inference....a kind of state of wonder. not a state of 'it is false till some materialistic explanation explains it which will make me feel safe and comfortable' which is how i usually feel where you lot is comin from

Hmm inference. That just sounds like a nice word for flimsy evidence. It still sounds like a little faith is needed.
I will consider new amazing human abilities false until someone is actually able to display them. I'm sure you know the Carl Sagan quote.

There doesn't need to be an explanation duendy, just some evidence of the powers.

me)))).when would you say it was good then??

It can be relied on most of the time but it is not perfect. We are capable of making mistakes, being misled or just plain old comforting delusion.

me))no. i was on about when some sceptic aserts tht there is no known proff for xyz. how do they KNOW? dont ya get me?

I think I do, you are saying it is a ridiculous claim because they haven't heard every case ever reported in every country going back centuries.

me)))how do you know you haven't avoided it on purpose

Hah maybe I have. No one has directly asked me to go scuba diving.

me))))well tis is what you materialists assume, and is your arrogance, and justifies how you insult peoples who are not as 'sure' as you.

How can you deny that I ask for a higher standard of evidence than you? Clearly I do duendy.

Yet again you say I am insulting people. Who have I insulted?

me))hah..well darlin, it seems 'all the time' ere

Yes there is. There is very little genuine investigation done here though. There is a lot of discussion about investigation which is different and that is where the arrogance slips in - from both sides.

true. looks good on paper that sentiment dunnit?

Aye. I think it is the reality more than you realise though.

 

[duendy]

shaman_ by inference i man lookin between the cracks, whic include your methodic criteria's cracks too. when i see impasse and unreolved pradox i look further a FIELD is what i mean. i wanna know when i maight be stuck in a rut

------yes you understood me about the empty assertion a person knows there is no proof for xyz. they say it so they dont have to explore it any more...especially from an 'uncomfortable' position of wonder

------the reason you didn't go scuba diving may be unconsious. e are not only our 'conscious' selves. there is deeper shit going on. you surely must know this being an experienced Tripper....??

you ask 'how can you deny i ask for a higher standard of evidence than you?'

cause of your approach. you seem tolook up to Carl Sagan like some fukin god. LET HIM GOOOOO. think and FEEL fo yo self

 

[Giambattista]

The events:


I worked at this place. I worked with this guy. I liked this guy. I suspected this guy liked me back.

One day, when the other person was not working, I got the feeling that he would call me there at work.

Big surprise this was. He had never called me at any time at all. Why he would suddenly call me at all was beyond my knowledge, yet there it was. Like deja vu. The feeling that he would call me.
It felt like deja vu, only this was a feeling of knowing something that would happen shortly thereafter. And it did.
An hour afterwards, with this persisting feeling, he called me at work. He had never called me before, and then, the very first time he does, I know about it an hour in advance. WHY? Coincidence???

Months later, working at a different place. For some odd reason, I ran into this person in the morning while driving my car. I had almost suspected that I would see him, but it wasn't really that strong.
Later that night, about an hour before getting off work, I get this overwhelming feeling that I would see him again that same night. It felt just like the first time with the telephone call. It was an extremely strong feeling that I would see him that night, though, living in a rather large city, I had no idea how I would see him again.

Unexpectedly, after getting off work, I decided to take a coworker home. At that point, when the coworker was getting into my car, I saw an extremely bright shooting star (meteor). This only compounded the feeling that I had.

After dropping this coworker off, lo and behold, who should I see, but this very same person I knew I would run into, in the lane next to me.
He didn't stop to say anything to me. If it wasn't him, then it was a person who looked just like him and drove a car just like him that had the exact same bumper-stickers as him.

I had no doubt that it was him. But that I would know that I was going to see him again was the weirdest thing of all. It was crazy.

I had never suspected it at all. But the notion was thrust on me, more or less, and turned out to be true.

These were not everyday occurences, nor were they even semi-frequent occurences.

These were events that I could not and should not predict, and yet I knew of them at least an hour beforehand each time. Nothing like this has ever occured between me and any other person. This case is unique.

 

[Giambattista]

There were other events besides those I just described, but I won't go into detail about them because frankly it is personal, and disturbing.

I've never had anything like that happen before or since.

Now, dissect it and tell me how wrong I am to think that it was actually precognition.

 

[Giambattista]

There you go. You have what you asked for. Tell me how this was an ordinary "coincidence". Tell me how no one actually knows these things ahead of time.

More than that, assure me of it. Show me numbers. Quote to me the probabilities of these events occuring, and then prove to me that these events were in fact due to statistically rare occurences, and not to extrasensory perception.

 

[Giambattista]

And mind you, this was a very personal thing that I just described, but I did it for the sake of the "discussion" about precognition.

 

[shaman_]

Apologies to Giambattista for trying to hijack his thread.

shaman_ by inference i man lookin between the cracks, whic include your methodic criteria's cracks too. when i see impasse and unreolved pradox i look further a FIELD is what i mean. i wanna know when i maight be stuck in a rut

The rut or impasse that you are referring to is the lack of evidence. You can keep looking but the problem is still there. If something like precognition exists then there should be evidence. That is why people ask for it.

------yes you understood me about the empty assertion a person knows there is no proof for xyz. they say it so they dont have to explore it any more...especially from an 'uncomfortable' position of wonder

Nope they say it because the evidence seen so far is not convincing. You are repeating the old idea that I would pretend that things don't exist because my mind couldn't handle it or I would feel scared. This is absurd as I would rather live in a world that has visiting aliens, psychics, guardian angels, precognition ect. Life would be more interesting.

What is much more likely is that people so desperately want these things to be true that they believe in amazing things even when there apppears to be no credible evidence to support the idea.

------the reason you didn't go scuba diving may be unconsious. e are not only our 'conscious' selves. there is deeper shit going on. you surely must know this being an experienced Tripper....??

It is certainly possible duendy.

you ask 'how can you deny i ask for a higher standard of evidence than you?'

cause of your approach.

Of course I require a higher standard of evidence than you do duendy. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the many discussions we have had.

you seem tolook up to Carl Sagan like some fukin god. LET HIM GOOOOO. think and FEEL fo yo self

I mentioned one very appropriate quote of his and you accuse me of worshipping him like a god. You make references to authors all the time. Does that mean you worship them and are no longer thinking for yourself? No. You are the one who hates being put in a box by assumptions.

 

[duendy]

Apologies to Giambattista for trying to hijack his thread.


The rut or impasse that you are referring to is the lack of evidence. You can keep looking but the problem is still there. If something like precognition exists then there should be evidence. That is why people ask for it.

me)))you HIDEbehind tis game your playin called 'wherezeevidence??'. that is your comfort zone. you just say it and like magic can keep keepin on in your safe zone. you neiter can be bothered actually making an effort to examine the evidence which IS avialable, ANDyour criteria for 'evidence' is limited. for example you distrust/dismiss peoples witness to paranormal events. and you dont broaden your fields of inquiry , so as o ccomadte a more open minded sophisticated approach

Nope they say it because the evidence seen so far is not convincing. You are repeating the old idea that I would pretend that things don't exist because my mind couldn't handle it or I would feel scared. This is absurd as I would rather live in a world that has visiting aliens, psychics, guardian angels, precognition ect. Life would be more interesting.

me))))))wich meansye borin....hehe. only jokin..errr i THINK. no seriously hah
ting is. as i have said, there IS evidence. but you just do not take time to explore it and hide behind other denies like Sagan andPSY-COPS etc. rest of te time its video games

What is much more likely is that people so desperately want these things to be true that they believe in amazing things even when there apppears to be no credible evidence to support the idea.
It is certainly possible duendy.

me))you think i want it to be true that freaky lookin grey aliens who use us like lab rats is true?....?

Of course I require a higher standard of evidence than you do duendy. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the many discussions we have had.

me)))but as i keep saying ....from what i see of how you appraoch tis issue you dont. your way to me is very unsophisticated


I mentioned one very appropriate quote of his and you accuse me of worshipping him like a god. You make references to authors all the time. Does that mean you worship them and are no longer thinking for yourself? No. You are the one who hates being put in a box by assumptions.

put it tis way, i cross myself everytime you mention guru carl sagan

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Giambattista,

I also apologize for the hijack. I'll read and to reply the details you posted at a later point.

put it tis way, i cross myself everytime you mention guru carl sagan

Duendy,

What about everything else that shaman presented? Is it just being ignored? Something interesting things have been asserted in this thread (and others) that I have seen before from other people whom tend to use 'belief' as a primary means to understand reality. I will list them out shortly and these things apply to 'non-believers' (people whose dominant means to understand reality is evidence based -Shaman, sorry to use boxes and I think it might help Duendy understand better-).

1) Non-believers cannot cope with the fantastic
2) Non-believers are uncreative

I am going to assert that NONE of these are true and I will offer EVIDENCE for this on YOUR terms. The reason I am doing this is because I have seen evidence suggesting you might be capable of improving your thought process and I suspect that the biggest thing holding you back are your stereotypes of people who employ these different thought processes.

Now, you tell me how I can personally show you that assertions 1) and 2) are not true. What evidence can I present and how would you like to see it? Remember, this is solely on your terms.

 

[duendy]

Giambattista,

I also apologize for the hijack. I'll read and to reply the details you posted at a later point.



Duendy,

What about everything else that shaman presented? Is it just being ignored?

me)))like what..?


me)))

Something interesting things have been asserted in this thread (and others) that I have seen before from other people whom tend to use 'belief' as a primary means to understand reality. I will list them out shortly and these things apply to 'non-believers' (people whose dominant means to understand reality is evidence based -Shaman, sorry to use boxes and I think it might help Duendy understand better-).
duendy----dont patronize

1) Non-believers cannot cope with the fantastic
2) Non-believers are uncreative

I am going to assert that NONE of these are true and I will offer EVIDENCE for this on YOUR terms. The reason I am doing this is because I have seen evidence suggesting you might be capable of improving your thought process and I suspect that the biggest thing holding you back are your stereotypes of people who employ these different thought processes.

Now, you tell me how I can personally show you that assertions 1) and 2) are not true. What evidence can I present and how would you like to see it? Remember, this is solely on your terms.

never said 'non-believer' aren't creative. your very implication is that i am a 'believer' right. so YOu stereotype yet accuse others of it...
typcial
now please , be straight with what yo is trying to say. at the mo its a biit of a riddle