Time Slips

[Light Travelling]

Talking of hallucinations.

I haveheard of 'time slips' during the 'highs' of hallucinagenic drugs. Time slips that can be experienced by more than one person at the same time. - Time seems to keep slipping back, or sometimes jumping forward or repeating.

The experience is that large amounts of time are experienced in the mind - in consciousness, in only small amount of physical time.

Now on the surface this is obviously hallucination, but can we be sure that everything experienced whilst minds are affected by these drugs is hallucination. Yes they produce hallucinations; colours etc. But that does not mean that they cannot activate or open areas of the brain aswell. Possibly areas that allow access to normally unconscious information.

You see the problem with drugs is the inner mind is really quite lucid during the 'high', but the physical body and outer mind are rendered incoherent by the drug. Therefore the person seems incoherent and debilitaled (and physically is) but this does not mean they are at all levels of consiousness.

Now whether there really is any reality to this I could not say for sure. And I know there is no logical or scientific basis for this, so you dont need to point that out. But still I thought it worth sharing.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Thats really cool. I might suggest using a video camera to record the environment throughout a shared event and having one sober person perform pre, post, and successor interviews to see how the content details of the experiences match up.

 

[heliocentric]

Im satisfied that there are such things as premonitions or 'timeslips' and from my own personal experience, ive experienced enough specific detail to say 'yes this is more than just plain coincidence'.
The thing is though everyones point at which something becomes more than just coincidence varies wildly, and for some people nothing is ever more than coincidence and there is no point atall where it becomes something more.
Its all down to how you interpret what you experience rather than what you experience in itself.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If everyone was satisfied with the world being flat and people didn't ask questions about it then the world would still be interpreted flat based on personal experience and nobody would know or care about the truth.

 

[heliocentric]

If everyone was satisfied with the world being flat and people didn't ask questions about it then the world would still be interpreted flat based on personal experience and nobody would know or care about the truth.

I think thats a poor analogy, (no offense meant but youre comparing something which can be objectively measured with a highly interpretive human experience) the point i was making is that there is no objective truth to be had, show me the exact measureable point at which something becomes more than coincidence...there isnt one. its always going to be a case of subjective interpretation whether you like it or not.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

No offense taken and I think the anology is very relevant. We can objectively measure the shape of Earth today. Could we always do so in the past? Nope. That left it at a highly interpreted human experience.

Here are example exact measurable point where something becomes more than coincidence:

EXAMPLE 1:

* Person A) enters a controlled environment and spontaenously demonstrates knowledge of it's details.

EXAMPLE 2:

* Person B) has a premonition, records it in detail with the assistance of a facilitator, and is accompanied by a facilitator when it 'comes to be'.

 

[heliocentric]

No offense taken and I think the anology is very relevant. We can objectively measure the shape of Earth today. Could we always do so in the past? Nope. That left it at a highly interpreted human experience.

Here are example exact measurable point where something becomes more than coincidence:

EXAMPLE 1:

* Person A) enters a controlled environment and spontaenously demonstrates knowledge of it's details.

EXAMPLE 2:

* Person B) has a premonition, records it in detail with the assistance of a facilitator, and is accompanied by a facilitator when it 'comes to be'.

Ok, what youve done is, youve found your own point at which something becomes more than coincidence. Which is no more than what ive done or anyone else in this thread has done. We've all got our own personal 'line in the sand' that beyond which we can no longer put it all down to just chance. This is all im trying to get across.
You could create an experiment that would prove premonitions for you, but i can guarantee you there will be large numbers of people who will think youve just recorded a sequence of extreme coincidences.
How could one prove them wrong? what is the difference between a really amazing coincidence and a premonition, what have you actually recorded and measured that would not be present within a coincidence?
As i said it is highly interpretive, and nothing more than a very personal subjective decision when you choose to catagorise something as either 'premonition' or 'coincidence'.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The "line in the sand" I am proposing is the minimal point where accurate and actionable evidence becomes available. 'Extreme coincidences' are removed with repeated experimentation and 'Extreme interpretations' don't matter (there are people who believe airplanes don't exist and they don't matter to all the pilots and passangers out there).

The point is no effect falls beyond the potential for measurement. When there are no good means (a technical limitation) for measurement then it doesn't automatically mean that the subjective becomes truth... the subjective is however quite often used as a substitute for truth (a natural human behavior IMO but utterly incorrect).

 

[heliocentric]

The "line in the sand" I am proposing is the minimal point where accurate and actionable evidence becomes available. 'Extreme coincidences' are removed with repeated experimentation and 'Extreme interpretations' don't matter (there are people who believe airplanes don't exist and they don't matter to all the pilots and passangers out there).

Extreme coincidences are never removed, unless you think theres a finite measurable point where they stop being so, *example how many rolls of a dice would i have to predict correctly for it to stop being coincidence and become premonition? 2 times? 4 times? and if you pick 4 times then why not 3 or 5? could you ever explain with rationality why youd pick 4 times to be the number at which premonition has been proven and not say... 3?

The point is no effect falls beyond the potential for measurement. When there are no good means (a technical limitation) for measurement then it doesn't automatically mean that the subjective becomes truth... the subjective is however quite often used as a substitute for truth (a natural human behavior IMO but utterly incorrect).

But you can never escape subjectivity this is the whole point, even if you measure something and record your data in black and white, theres nothing stopping people from interpreting the evidence anyway they like. Its not a case of substituting anything, by all means strive for objectivitiy, but also be aware that there are implications that extend beyond the data that people will read either one way or the other. And as i have pointed out, even the simple process of picking your line in the sand is incredible subjective and instinctual.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Extreme coincidences are never removed, unless you think theres a finite measurable point where they stop being so, *example how many rolls of a dice would i have to predict correctly for it to stop being coincidence and become premonition? 2 times? 4 times? and if you pick 4 times then why not 3 or 5? could you ever explain with rationality why youd pick 4 times to be the number at which premonition has been proven and not say... 3?

I think 27 is a statistically significant number and with multiple trials, even greater granularity can be achieved.

But you can never escape subjectivity this is the whole point, even if you measure something and record your data in black and white, theres nothing stopping people from interpreting the evidence anyway they like. Its not a case of substituting anything, by all means strive for objectivitiy, but also be aware that there are implications that extend beyond the data that people will read either one way or the other. And as i have pointed out, even the simple process of picking your line in the sand is incredible subjective and instinctual.

You're correct, evidence can be interpreted anyway anyone likes. That's why it's important do model theory and then see if reality agrees with the predictions of the theory. If it doesn't, then no matter what the evidence interpretation is, reality has clearly stated otherwise.

 

[heliocentric]

I think 27 is a statistically significant number and with multiple trials, even greater granularity can be achieved.

Sure 27 is a nice number, but why did you pick that one as opposed to 26, or 28?

You're correct, evidence can be interpreted anyway anyone likes. That's why it's important do model theory and then see if reality agrees with the predictions of the theory. If it doesn't, then no matter what the evidence interpretation is, reality has clearly stated otherwise.

True, but that doesnt really come in to play in this instance, and indeed in many other instances of experimentation. We're not theorising here, we'd just be seeing what happens and recording the data, all conclusions drawn would be highly subjective. I cant see how model theory comes into this atall to be honest.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sure 27 is a nice number, but why did you pick that one as opposed to 26, or 28?

Great question and this is something that goes back to some college statistics class. When sampling an event, we want to determing the probability that something is true. Most folks want a 5% level (meaning 95% confident that the results are true). 27 is a minimum sample level to fulfill the confidence criteria.

True, but that doesnt really come in to play in this instance, and indeed in many other instances of experimentation. We're not theorising here, we'd just be seeing what happens and recording the data, all conclusions drawn would be highly subjective. I cant see how model theory comes into this atall to be honest.

Initially we would be collecting data and in it's rawest format and it is evidence for *something*. The consistency and quality of the data can lead to hypothesis to test and additional observations to make in a more controlled fashion. Based on the results, a theory can be modeled and predictions can be made. Those predictions can then be tested and support / modify the model.

Imagine, if the data supported the ability of the human brain to perceive future events. Brain activity could be monitored at preminition time and could potentially be reproduced with biotech and TMS technoligies. Then onward to the predictions, the products, the research, the theories, and before you know it it's as common as water.