Time Slips

Wingmaker Seeker said:
Yes you would, semi-regular (sometimes daily, but sometimes there are "dry spells")
Click to expand...

What happens when Deja Vu kicks in (i.e. what is the average experience)?
 
MetaKron said:
"Inconclusive evidence" is evidence or we wouldn't call it evidence. It's not the same thing as "no evidence."
Click to expand...

Specifically it's evidence for *something* and What that *something* is remains unknown.
 
I've been involved in two car accidents. Both serious. Neither my fault.

Car Accident No. 1 : I am sitting with two friends chatting about this and that before it is time for us to hit the road and go and watch a film at my house. Half way through our conversation we all felt an incredible chill, spine tingling stuff. Simultaneously we said 'Something bad is going to happen.' My friends girlfriend could not shake the feeling but we told her to chill out as we were all being unnecessarily superstitious.

Ten minutes later we are being cut free from my vehicle. A cop car had smashed into us at just under 100mph chasing some guys who had just robbed a post office.
My male friend who was seatbelted in the front ended up through the back window but only needed stitches to his head. I have a permanently damaged back, lots of scar tissue inside but otherwise fine. The girl smashed her leg to bits under my seat and will never be what she wanted to be which was a ballerina.

Car Accident No. 2 : I leave work and suddenly I experience the same dread that came over me all those years ago but never since. I remember thinking 'No, this cant be real.' But I dismiss it, not superstitious. Ten minutes later just as I am nearing home and thinking that I was an idiot for worrying, a woman pulls out of a side road straight into the path of my car. She didnt see me and hit the front of my car whilst I was travelling 40mph. My back is a right mess now :(

Coincidence? Maybe. But I cannot help but see that 'feeling' as a premonition. I hope I never get it again put it that way.

Maybe we are all connected to past and future events in ways we do not understand and that flashes of time can ripple backwards and forwards to the present. I wouldnt write off the possibility based on my experiences.

peace

c20
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Mind if I interveiw yourself and the two friends involved in the 1st car accident?
Click to expand...

Actually I would have no problem with that but I have lost contact with the girl and my friend jumped in front of a train when he was 26 [8 years ago] :(

I realise that sounds like a cop out. I only wish it were different CC.

peace

c20
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Specifically it's evidence for *something* and What that *something* is remains unknown.
Click to expand...

That's better. I'm tired of hearing "no evidence" as a substitute for a phrase like "no evidence that we choose to believe" or something similar. Your reasons for choosing to believe are yours and I have reasons for my choices.

Brain dysfunction may well produce experiences that are like deja vu, but there is a big problem with assuming that this proves that deja vu is the result of brain dysfunction. All sort of perceptions can be created by brain stimulation, or by dysfunction which is a form of self-stimulation. Such stimulation produces sensations of touch, smell, sight, sound, and even proprioception. This proves nothing about the validity of those senses. The place where we make the distinction is where we did before, which makes the mental exercise pointless. With or without the information about brain dysfunction and stimulation, we still believe that the five accepted senses are valid, and the other senses are not valid, but the thing we use to prove the others invalid would, on a level playing field, prove the first five accepted senses to be invalid.

It's a very easy trap to fall into because people accept that nothing has changed more easily than they accept change. This is true even when to achieve this condition, we undermine the philosophies that we use to prove anything at all. "Philosophy of science" is vital, not an afterthought. Some of us use it instinctively. The rest think we're crazy.
 
Here's what I have to say about deja vu: Behind a certain high school in the U.S. exists an area where there is a cave walled off with cinder blocks, and an old limestone pillar on its side. The very first time I visited the area I realized that I knew it very, very well. In fact, there was a whole area of that town that I knew very well although I had never been there. It was during relatively modern times, probably the 1950s or the 1960s, because some of the things that I saw cannot have been any older than the 1940s. It was as if I had lived a life concurrent with the one that I now live.

I cannot abide some people's philosophy that even though physics allows for many possibilities, if we can't prove that it has happened it hasn't happened. To me a lot of things are proven. When I was in a room and another person who believed in telepathy tried to contact me, I felt it right away. Even though, and actually because I cared for that person, I blocked myself for personal reasons. It was kind of a shame because it could have led to some pretty fine proof of the existence of telepathy, but some of us have nothing to prove to anyone, especially not at the personal cost, which can be pretty high. No one deals with Randi because he is a complete jerk.

It is much better to concern myself with my own life and with those who want to be a part of it. Those who have any real talent can make millions without going hat in hand to anyone.
 
For any claim of 'psychic' ability (or any fantastic claim for that matter) to be taken seriously, evidence of it (and not something else) has to be brought to surface. 'Belief' doesn't cut it.
 
For science to be taken seriously, it needs to improve its attitude. "Overbearing" doesn't cut it.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
For any claim of 'psychic' ability (or any fantastic claim for that matter) to be taken seriously, evidence of it (and not something else) has to be brought to surface. 'Belief' doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
I think this is a fair statement. The unfortunate thing is that self experience is just that and if it is unable to be shared properly with others [ evidence] then it stays as self experience until it does.

Is it to be expected that persons just simply take someones word for it? Nope...However as Metakron has alluded to, contantly repeating the "need evidence" requirement ad nausium gets a bit tiring.

It is true however a lot of people just seem to expect others to believe them regardless of the lack of evidence that can be shared and constantly need reminding of the limitations of their self evidence.
 
I think the position I asserted is not producing the intended interpretation. There is nothing wrong with personal experience (I think it's great). This is typically evidence of *something* (usually utterly incoclusive) and when that something is substitutude with the attractive and fantastic such as telekenesis, telepathy, seeing the future, then we have a claim which the evidence doesn't support.
 
this evidence thang...its like some kind of brick wall isn't it. i have heard it a lot during my times at various forums. it is like a mantra--most usually being demanded-sometimes-from scientisificanados

i 'm more and more thinking tis evidece milarchy is like an impasse. and it splits off tose who think temselves acientific from tose who have experienced non-ordinary phenomena.
it is really insulting to someone who has had really significant experiene-tat can change their lives-to be patronizingly told it is 'mere subjective'.....what even does that MEAN?....it is a stance of very science-im to even state it that way-ie., 'mere subjectie' as thoug our inner quality of feelingis considered meaningLESS.............whenever you get a philosophy which divides polar related extremes, such as 'subjective'~~~~'objective' we should seek to explore the EXcluded middle.......tearea that isusually made un-conscious off, especially by the 'object-ivists'....te ones who seriously beieve one can b wholly objective and subjctive holds no sway over their interpetations
 
duendy,

can that response be re-written with the standard english language? Using lazy-internet shorthand, leet, ebonics, or whatever is being used there is resulting in a very incoherent message.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
duendy,

can that response be re-written with the standard english language? Using lazy-internet shorthand, leet, ebonics, or whatever is being used there is resulting in a very incoherent message.
Click to expand...
no....sorry...make effort
 
I'm sorry Duendy,

If you refuse to communicate with standard language (especially after being informed that your 'alternative' is not comprehendable) then I am simply going to add you to my ignore list solely based on the grounds of your self-chosen communication incompetence.
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I'm sorry Duendy,

If you refuse to communicate with standard language (especially after being informed that your 'alternative' is not comprehendable) then I am simply going to add you to my ignore list solely based on the grounds of your self-chosen communication incompetence.
Click to expand...

am i bovered?
 
Crunchy Cat said:
I think the position I asserted is not producing the intended interpretation. There is nothing wrong with personal experience (I think it's great). This is typically evidence of *something* (usually utterly incoclusive) and when that something is substitutude with the attractive and fantastic such as telekenesis, telepathy, seeing the future, then we have a claim which the evidence doesn't support.
Click to expand...
I think I interpreted your post well enough and even now still agree, possibly others will find a problem as most beliefs need defending yes?

It would be better i think if there was some effort made to attempt to understand why evidence is not available. Why it seems impossible to show consistant proofs of psychic ability.

Why are these experiences only relegated to being personal only and not able to be shared.

Certainly there are enough people with similar expereinces to warrant a question on why even though these expereinces seem so common that none have yet been able to be proved in a way that any rational person may accept as shared or sharable evidence.

The reason I used the words rational person is not to suggest that the person who has had the experience is irrational, in fact far from the intent.
It is however IMO irrational to expect others to accept personal experience as a global evidence on it's own with out those experiences becoming global with evidence that can be deemed global and not personal.

So Crunchy Cat I agree very much with your comments. Even though I have extensive personal experience my self of psychic activity.
 
Quantum Quack said:
...Why it seems impossible to show consistant proofs of psychic ability...So Crunchy Cat I agree very much with your comments. Even though I have extensive personal experience my self of psychic activity.
Click to expand...


QQ,

Thanks for the reply. Your agreement with my assertions and subsequent statements:

"...Why it seems impossible to show consistant proofs of psychic ability..."
"...I have extensive personal experience my self of psychic activity."

tell me that I haven't communicated exactly what I intended. I'll try to clarify. In the two quoted statements above, a full condlusion of the existence of psychic ability is asserted. In the world there exists a whole lot of inconclusive evidence (i.e. evidence of *something* that is not determinable). There are alot of personal experiences (including mine) that are utterly fantastic in nature; however, many of these experiences would fall into the inconclusive category as far as evidence is concerned. The two quoted statements above are assertions of truth; however, no assertion can stand upon inconclusive evidence. I hope this clairifed what I was trying to communicate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top