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.

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

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.

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.
no helookslike a typical Jewish New Yorker

no helookslike a typical Jewish New Yorker

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?

that time as not apart from space. so we have a spactime fabric

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.

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

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

If you're getting used to that process of thinking then why not employ it?

Difficult to say "I believe" when he hasn't told us much of what he's done ;)

If you're getting used to that process of thinking then why not employ it?
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/"

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/"

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"

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/"
Is there something wrong with asking for evidence duendy?

I have seen you demand evidence a few times by the way.

Is there something wrong with asking for evidence duendy?

I have seen you demand evidence a few times by the way.
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

hey stranger...wheres ya been hidin? Been busy lately so I have been reading but not posting.


no i am not anti-evidence...when its APPROPRIATE
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.

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
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".


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
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.


i am afriad you become the machinery of your mechanical philosophy, andit shows, but you dont see it
I have no mechanical philosophy duendy I am just not as quick to believe in the fantastic as you are.

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...?

...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...

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

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?

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...

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.

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

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)

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 yourselvesNo 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 limitedThe 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.

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?

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 purposeHah 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' ereYes 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 wonderNope 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.

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

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.

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

Duendy,

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

Crunchy Cat - sorry if this is obvious (took me a while to see it myself) but Duendy comments inside the text she quotes.

never said 'non-believer' aren't creative.

Not in this thread.


your very implication is that i am a 'believer' right. so YOu stereotype yet accuse others of it...
typcial

Theres a difference between the statements:

"I have seen before from other people whom tend to use 'belief' as a primary means to understand reality."

and

"I have seen before from other people whom ALSO tend to use 'belief' as a primary means to understand reality."

I used the former. You're choosing to invent implication so you can be a victim and its not the first time i've seen that behavior.


now please , be straight with what yo is trying to say. at the mo its a biit of a riddle

* I think you have the capability to think differently and grow.
* I think there is an obsticle for you on the path to doing this. That obstacle is one or more stereotypes of people whom think more like me.
* I am giving you the opportunity to remove those obsticles on your terms with evidence you ask for.

Crunchy Cat - sorry if this is obvious (took me a while to see it myself) but Duendy comments inside the text she quotes.

You are 100% correct. My bad (sorry Duendy).

well Crunchy cat...snapo. i see an obstacle in YOUR path

aslright lets take a sceenario then and see how we would both differing handling the event

a family claims they have had a very powerful experience. that they say a bright UFO in te sky that had a deep emotional impact on each one of them----a wide age range from gran, tru mum andtwo young boys of about 12

mum and gran tewlls you this. you are sat with them, and can see they are both VERY distressed. in fact gran breaks down, and mum comforts her
after they had seen tis flying and hovering very bright spherical pbject and felt this deep love.....suddenly an hour was missing--thewy tell you

what is REALLY distressing them is.....they do not know what hs happened. it is So in-credible tey do not know how to PROCESS it....

now, how would you repond to this family and what they are sharing with you...?

well Crunchy cat...snapo. i see an obstacle in YOUR path

aslright lets take a sceenario then and see how we would both differing handling the event

a family claims they have had a very powerful experience. that they say a bright UFO in te sky that had a deep emotional impact on each one of them----a wide age range from gran, tru mum andtwo young boys of about 12

mum and gran tewlls you this. you are sat with them, and can see they are both VERY distressed. in fact gran breaks down, and mum comforts her
after they had seen tis flying and hovering very bright spherical pbject and felt this deep love.....suddenly an hour was missing--thewy tell you

what is REALLY distressing them is.....they do not know what hs happened. it is So in-credible tey do not know how to PROCESS it....

now, how would you repond to this family and what they are sharing with you...?

My response to the family would be to listen to what they said and ask questions to keep them talking.

My response to the family would be to listen to what they said and ask questions to keep them talking.
Even I would agree with that. But I'd prefer to take it bit differently than as described and talk/listen to them individually rather than in a group or even two at a time. Then compare notes and visit each again. No doubt the stories would be different - even though all of them experienced it together. It's the degree of differences that would, pardon me - no pun intended, make the difference.

Crunchy Cat has taken this discussion in a more interesting direction but I will keep going with my responses anyway because I am argumentative.
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.
It is really quite simple duendy. I want to see evidence of these amazing abilities before I believe in them. Doesn't that sound quite logical? Isn't that more likely than me deceptively pretending to ask but with no intention of wanting to know the answer because the convincing evidence will shatter my precious world. ?


you neiter can be bothered actually making an effort to examine the evidence which IS avialable, How do you know what I have examined? You don't, but you like to think that skeptics haven't looked at evidence of the paranormal because that can be the only explanation for it not being accepted by science yet.



ANDyour criteria for 'evidence' is limited. for example you distrust/dismiss peoples witness to paranormal events.
Again, my criteria for evidence is higher than yours and you see that as limited.

I am wary of witness testimony yes. You know very well that witness testimony has been shown time and time again to be unreliable. This is something that you choose to ignore.


and you dont broaden your fields of inquiry , so as o ccomadte a more open minded sophisticated approachNo offence but the approach you have been describing does not sound sophisticated at all.

You are just eager to believe in something so you will accept anything as convincing evidence.


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 You have no idea what I have looked at. You need to believe that I haven't seen the evidence otherwise I would be convinced like you. Perhaps I have seen the same evidence as you (possibly more) and didn't find it credible.

behind other denies like Sagan andPSY-COPS etc. rest of te time its video gamesYou are just being immature now duendy. I have explained to you before that I have only read a few csicop articles, (you accused me of worshipping them a few months ago) I have read nothing by Carl Sagan, I just know his famous quote regarding evidence(kinda relevant) and I have hardly touched the pc in months.

I don't accuse you of being off your head on mushies all the time and worshipping Terence Mckenna.



me))you think i want it to be true that freaky lookin grey aliens who use us like lab rats is true?....?Now this is an interesting point. I think that although the view of the universe may appear to be less safe due to abductions, people still want to believe in aliens because a) life is more exciting and b) the confirmation that there is another race in the universe can have a profound effect on a person. If there is one race abducting maybe there is another race looking down on us and guiding us! Perhaps there are many races.

The trade off here is that a few random people get abducted, probed and then put back. I still think most people would prefer that they exist.


me)))but as i keep saying ....from what i see of how you appraoch tis issue you dont. your way to me is very unsophisticatedWhy are you denying that I have a higher standard for criteria? With your supposedly more sophisticated approach how come you belive in so much that I do not? hmmm.


put it tis way, i cross myself everytime you mention guru carl sagan
You mention him more than I do. :p

Total communication breakdown and stereotyping of each others character and intellectual position by page 3...thats fast work :p

I'll tell my tale; it was couple of years ago when i was experimenting with lucid dreaming, i got pretty good at it to the point where i could slip into that state after about 5 minutes.
After a while i wanted to see if i could use these states to predict the future, i experimented by letting various images come into my mind during my lucid state and taking note of any that particularly stood out.
One night i had a very strange image came to me, it was the face of jesus, which in itself is odd since i dont believe in jesus. But weirder still was the odd cartoon quality the image had, and i remember specifically how strange it was that he had a square beard!
I came out of my state thinking...hmm well that was odd, jesus with a square beard, no idea how i came up with that. Anyway after pottering around abit i finally went to sleep, when i woke up i switched on the tv. I was pretty damn amazed to see the same image on the tv that id seen the night before in my lucid state. I thought i was tripping, so i turned the volume up to see what was going on...it turned out this program was about medieval depications of jesus christ throughout the ages. Now its worth pointing out that the image on the tv was *exactly* the same as the one id seen the night before.

If the image on the tv had just been a similar sort of picture of jesus id have put it down to coincidence but what got me was the level of detail to this image on the tv that my vision had, the picture on the tv even had the curious square beard. :p
I didnt delve much into lucid dreaming after that, the nearest experience ive had close to this is a kind of universal collective knowledge of everything that is or has been. Probably the most profound experience of my life.
It is a cliche but what people tend to say about these experiences is true, you have to come at the experience with a total absense of fear. If theres any fear there, even the slightest hint of 'woah hang on this is a bit too much, i dont like this anymore this is shattering my concept of what is real' in the back of your mind then these experiences (in my experience ;)) simply wont present themselves.

Crunchy Cat has taken this discussion in a more interesting direction but I will keep going with my responses anyway because I am argumentative.

me)))yeah, but alos join in WITH the CC and me, etc., dialogue andlet us know how you'd repond to that family

It is really quite simple duendy. I want to see evidence of these amazing abilities before I believe in them. Doesn't that sound quite logical? Isn't that more likely than me deceptively pretending to ask but with no intention of wanting to know the answer because the convincing evidence will shatter my precious world. ?

me))))of course i seems logical. i want to undersand to. but i seem to have different take on matter. yes there are many hoaxers. so first, do they want money? or are tey sharing with you some really unusual experience? how do you relat to it. by badgering them fo evidence? itmay only happen once in teir lives...! your mindset seems to always want conveyor-belt quantative results....do you see what i mean?


How do you know what I have examined? You don't, but you like to think that skeptics haven't looked at evidence of the paranormal because that can be the only explanation for it not being accepted by science yet.

me)))what was the last evidence you examined? and did you present your findings at this forum? if so where are tey?or at any forum, website..?


Again, my criteria for evidence is higher than yours and you see that as limited.

me)))but you keep repeating tis dont mean jack shit. its just your opinion. i a claiming 'sophisticaton' means an interdisciplinary approach to anomalous events

I am wary of witness testimony yes. You know very well that witness testimony has been shown time and time again to be unreliable. This is something that you choose to ignore.

me))))))time and time again? who says so? PSYCOPS? SAgan? omeone with a materialistic agenda? who?
as said. testomny is accepted in court. ad if people are openly sharing wid u teir weird expriences and not askin fo money, they deserve to be listened to, and with respect!

No offence but the approach you have been describing does not sound sophisticated at all.


You are just eager to believe in something so you will accept anything as convincing evidence.

me))))as usualy, patronizing. you dont know what i do. what i think. your assuming.

You have no idea what I have looked at. You need to believe that I haven't seen the evidence otherwise I would be convinced like you. Perhaps I have seen the same evidence as you (possibly more) and didn't find it credible.
You are just being immature now duendy. I have explained to you before that I have only read a few csicop articles, (you accused me of worshipping them a few months ago) I have read nothing by Carl Sagan, I just know his famous quote regarding evidence(kinda relevant) and I have hardly touched the pc in months.

me)))ooooo wasit someting i said...? and see how YOU dont like being told what YO do yet dish it out on me. tis is why we tend to go round in circls i spose. your worldview seems --o me--VERY entrenched in a materialistic outlook.

I don't accuse you of being off your head on mushies all the time and worshipping Terence Mckenna.

me))))))yes, but you've just IMPLIEDit haven't you....snidey lad


Now this is an interesting point. I think that although the view of the universe may appear to be less safe due to abductions, people still want to believe in aliens because a) life is more exciting and b) the confirmation that there is another race in the universe can have a profound effect on a person. If there is one race abducting maybe there is another race looking down on us and guiding us! Perhaps there are many races.

me))))i dont NEED to think of aliens to make me feel how amzin this universe is. psychedelic exprience was THE most amazing exprience i hav ever had.....what intrigues me about th alien ting and paranormal is from hearing people talk about experiences, and seeing various film footage and photies on this phenomena. then i am intrigued by the sceptics reaction which is NOT mine. so i was inspired to llok closer at the skeptics PHILOSOPHY they efen DENY havin/....etc

The trade off here is that a few random people get abducted, probed and then put back. I still think most people would prefer that they exist.

me))))oh yaaaah. THAT makes sense....

Why are you denying that I have a higher standard for criteria? With your supposedly more sophisticated approach how come you belive in so much that I do not? hmmm.

me))))))cuse i have read more broadly about it than you...?which includes othe fields of inquiry.....?


You mention him more than I do. :p
who, Sagan. know he liked his dope

My response to the family would be to listen to what they said and ask questions to keep them talking.
...and then what?

Total communication breakdown and stereotyping of each others character and intellectual position by page 3...thats fast work :p

I'll tell my tale; it was couple of years ago when i was experimenting with lucid dreaming, i got pretty good at it to the point where i could slip into that state after about 5 minutes.
After a while i wanted to see if i could use these states to predict the future, i experimented by letting various images come into my mind during my lucid state and taking note of any that particularly stood out.
One night i had a very strange image came to me, it was the face of jesus, which in itself is odd since i dont believe in jesus. But weirder still was the odd cartoon quality the image had, and i remember specifically how strange it was that he had a square beard!
I came out of my state thinking...hmm well that was odd, jesus with a square beard, no idea how i came up with that. Anyway after pottering around abit i finally went to sleep, when i woke up i switched on the tv. I was pretty damn amazed to see the same image on the tv that id seen the night before in my lucid state. I thought i was tripping, so i turned the volume up to see what was going on...it turned out this program was about medieval depications of jesus christ throughout the ages. Now its worth pointing out that the image on the tv was *exactly* the same as the one id seen the night before.

If the image on the tv had just been a similar sort of picture of jesus id have put it down to coincidence but what got me was the level of detail to this image on the tv that my vision had, the picture on the tv even had the curious square beard. :p
I didnt delve much into lucid dreaming after that, the nearest experience ive had close to this is a kind of universal collective knowledge of everything that is or has been. Probably the most profound experience of my life.
It is a cliche but what people tend to say about these experiences is true, you have to come at the experience with a total absense of fear. If theres any fear there, even the slightest hint of 'woah hang on this is a bit too much, i dont like this anymore this is shattering my concept of what is real' in the back of your mind then these experiences (in my experience ;)) simply wont present themselves.
two things came to mind reading your conclusion...:

a))it is true i feel that is someone decides on a materialistic version of reality then that is what they will actualize----for as you say, fear and doubt can counteract such events as your experience....

yet

b)))some peple may experience incredible events even THO they may be doubtful, and fearful, ad materialistic etc

me))))of course i seems logical. i want to undersand to. but i seem to have different take on matter. yes there are many hoaxers. so first, do they want money? or are tey sharing with you some really unusual experience? how do you relat to it. by badgering them fo evidence? itmay only happen once in teir lives...! your mindset seems to always want conveyor-belt quantative results....do you see what i mean?Yes. I want credible evidence where you are willing to accept less. You make excuses to justify this.


me)))what was the last evidence you examined? and did you present your findings at this forum? if so where are tey?or at any forum, website..?Are actually you criticising me for not actively posting or contributing? What does that have to do with anything? Do you actually want to know the last thing I looked at?


me)))but you keep repeating tis dont mean jack shit. its just your opinion. ..?Of course it is. So are your posts.


me))))))time and time again? who says so? PSYCOPS? SAgan? omeone with a materialistic agenda? who?
as said. testomny is accepted in court. ad if people are openly sharing wid u teir weird expriences and not askin fo money, they deserve to be listened to, and with respect!Are you playing dumb? Take your blinkers off duendy. You should remember this thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45461

Re-read some of skinwalkers posts. (Now that I have made a reference to him you will accuse me of worshipping him :rolleyes: )

Hey you mentioned sagan again! Ding.


me))))as usualy, patronizing. you dont know what i do. what i think. your assuming. No it is an observation, what you would call 'savvy'. :p

me)))ooooo wasit someting i said...? and see how YOU dont like being told what YO do yet dish it out on me. tis is why we tend to go round in circls i spose. your worldview seems --o me--VERY entrenched in a materialistic outlook.Yes I know about the materialistic outlook thing duendy, you have mentioned that before.


me))))))yes, but you've just IMPLIEDit haven't you....snidey lad
That was not my intention. I really was just trying to make a point.


me))))i dont NEED to think of aliens to make me feel how amzin this universe is. psychedelic exprience was THE most amazing exprience i hav ever had.....what intrigues me about th alien ting and paranormal is from hearing people talk about experiences, and seeing various film footage and photies on this phenomena. then i am intrigued by the sceptics reaction which is NOT mine. so i was inspired to llok closer at the skeptics PHILOSOPHY they efen DENY havin/....etcNo you don't need to believe in them but with the evidence presented so far you have chosen to.

Actually my ecstacy experiences were more profound than my psychedelic experiences. Maybe its a generation thing, then again I have yet to try shrooms.


me))))oh yaaaah. THAT makes sense....Explain why it does not. I am talking about people preferring to belive that star wars/trek is happening right above us in space OR no other life in an empty solar system.

Which is better? Do you at least see my point?

Yes. I want credible evidence where you are willing to accept less. You make excuses to justify this.

Are actually you criticising me for not actively posting or contributing? What does that have to do with anything? Do you actually want to know the last thing I looked at?

me))))no i want examples of how ytou examine evidence and presnt alternative evidence. its YOU who keeps goin on about it laddie...

Of course it is. So are your posts.

Are you playing dumb? Take your blinkers off duendy. You should remember this thread. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45461

me))))hmmmpgh. ypou can dig that up but not you and your evidence milarchy?

Re-read some of skinwalkers posts. (Now that I have made a reference to him you will accuse me of worshipping him :rolleyes: )

me)))would sooner chew razors eyeball rollr

Hey you mentioned sagan again! Ding.

me))))no...itserrr yu who mention him. whay would i?

No it is an observation, what you would call 'savvy'. :p

Yes I know about the materialistic outlook thing duendy, you have mentioned that before.

me))but it doesn't seem to hold your interest. yu seem to imagine it a side issue

That was not my intention. I really was just trying to make a point.

No you don't need to believe in them but with the evidence presented so far you have chosen to.

Actually my ecstacy experiences were more profound than my psychedelic experiences. Maybe its a generation thing, then again I have yet to try shrooms.

me))the drug 'Ecstasy' is NOT a psychedelic!

Explain why it does not. I am talking about people preferring to belive that star wars/trek is happening right above us in space OR no other life in an empty solar system.

Which is better? Do you at least see my point?
no i dont........)))))))))))))))((((

...and then what?

If my 'BS detector' didn't go off then I would likely commit to something along the lines of:

"I can see that this experience is very important and that you desperately want to know the truth about what happened. I might be able to help you get closer to that truth and it would require a committment from everyone (including myself) to be open about our lives, the positive and negative, and to do whatever it takes to explore the experience in depth, find external evidence, and possibly even reproduce the experience. The best outcome would be to figure out exactly what happened and the worst outcome is to remain where we are today indefinately with a big question mark."

If my 'BS detector' didn't go off then I would likely commit to something along the lines of:

"I can see that this experience is very important and that you desperately want to know the truth about what happened. I might be able to help you get closer to that truth and it would require a committment from everyone (including myself) to be open about our lives, the positive and negative, and to do whatever it takes to explore the experience in depth, find external evidence, and possibly even reproduce the experience. The best outcome would be to figure out exactly what happened and the worst outcome is to remain where we are today indefinately with a big question mark."
does it disturb you to live with a question mark CC...?

also, what do you mean 'reproduce the experience'...???

Total communication breakdown and stereotyping of each others character and intellectual position by page 3...thats fast work :p

I'll tell my tale; it was couple of years ago when i was experimenting with lucid dreaming, i got pretty good at it to the point where i could slip into that state after about 5 minutes.
After a while i wanted to see if i could use these states to predict the future, i experimented by letting various images come into my mind during my lucid state and taking note of any that particularly stood out.
One night i had a very strange image came to me, it was the face of jesus, which in itself is odd since i dont believe in jesus. But weirder still was the odd cartoon quality the image had, and i remember specifically how strange it was that he had a square beard!
I came out of my state thinking...hmm well that was odd, jesus with a square beard, no idea how i came up with that. Anyway after pottering around abit i finally went to sleep, when i woke up i switched on the tv. I was pretty damn amazed to see the same image on the tv that id seen the night before in my lucid state. I thought i was tripping, so i turned the volume up to see what was going on...it turned out this program was about medieval depications of jesus christ throughout the ages. Now its worth pointing out that the image on the tv was *exactly* the same as the one id seen the night before.

If the image on the tv had just been a similar sort of picture of jesus id have put it down to coincidence but what got me was the level of detail to this image on the tv that my vision had, the picture on the tv even had the curious square beard. :p
I didnt delve much into lucid dreaming after that, the nearest experience ive had close to this is a kind of universal collective knowledge of everything that is or has been. Probably the most profound experience of my life.
It is a cliche but what people tend to say about these experiences is true, you have to come at the experience with a total absense of fear. If theres any fear there, even the slightest hint of 'woah hang on this is a bit too much, i dont like this anymore this is shattering my concept of what is real' in the back of your mind then these experiences (in my experience ;)) simply wont present themselves.

That's pretty cool. As a black-belt lucid dreamer of 25 years, that type of experience is something I've run across from time to time. For me, fear has never helped nor hindered fantastic dreaming experiences. Resistance does however. Lucid dreams can be combined with nightmares and I've used resistance to lessen / negate the impact of pain.

Tell me more about that universal collective knowledge experience. It sounds killer.

does it disturb you to live with a question mark CC...?

Not at all and it does give me a jolt of pleasure to discover and create things.


also, what do you mean 'reproduce the experience'...???

Let's say, for example, it was discovered that the affected family had a high amount of some chemical in their blood stream from an unexpected toxin in their water supply and further study revealed the chemical reduced electrical activity in 2 specific parts of the brain. A hypothesis may be that extreme reduction of electrical activity in those parts of the brain leads to a very similar type of visual, audio, tactile, and emotional hallucination and that hypothesis could be tested by applying TMS to those same parts of the brain.
If the TMS results reproduced the experience then not only would the truth have been discovered, the experience would have been nicely reproduced in a controlled setting.

Even I would agree with that. But I'd prefer to take it bit differently than as described and talk/listen to them individually rather than in a group or even two at a time. Then compare notes and visit each again. No doubt the stories would be different - even though all of them experienced it together. It's the degree of differences that would, pardon me - no pun intended, make the difference.

Thats a really good strategy and it wouldn't work in a high-emotional situation like the one duendy presented because initially, the 'guest' listener is on their terms and humans will typically resist doing anything above and beyond what they want to do in such situatiions.

That's pretty cool. As a black-belt lucid dreamer of 25 years, that type of experience is something I've run across from time to time. For me, fear has never helped nor hindered fantastic dreaming experiences. Resistance does however. Lucid dreams can be combined with nightmares and I've used resistance to lessen / negate the impact of pain.

Tell me more about that universal collective knowledge experience. It sounds killer.
Ah well, i wasnt saying that a lack of resistance to fear was needed in order to lucid dream, youre right its not something that helps or hinders that type of experience. I was refering to universal knowlege type experiences when i was talking about fear.
About the experience itself: i was in a club with some friends we all took the same batch of mdma pills. However when i 'came up' i was amazed at how good i felt i assumed that they were just really good quality pills with a high level of mdma in them for me to feel as good as i was.
I was sat down around the out-skirts of the dance floor with my best friend next to me, i found myself being hypnotised by the tribal like rhythms of the music. As this continued it felt right to close my eyes, as it continued further it felt even more right to place both of my hands on my knees but with the palms facing up. I have no idea why this position felt 'right' at the time, ive never done it before and im not muslim or religious in any way. Although thinking back i do wonder if id stumbled apon the original purpose of this gesture/position within the islmaic faith. I think something about the posture aids an openness and helps to foster communication with the universe around us, although as with most cultural practices the original intention and meaning gets lost and degenerates into 'tradition'. (although this is all speculation of course).
Anyway, after a minute of being in this position i felt a strong sense of peace, love (not uncommon with the mdma experience) but what got me was this feeling of knowledge, so much knowledge that it was impossible to really pick anything out. It sounds funny but it was somewhat like in the film the matrix when neo can simply 'download' information about anything from his database and instantly know everything about military strategy, or kung fu.

It felt like i had stumbled apon a sort of universal data-base of knowledge that was ever present but for the most part out of grasp to the human mind.
I opened my eyes for a second in this instant spotted a guy on the dance floor, i had the oddest feeling, i knew in that moment that i could enter his body if i so wished.
That freaked me out, since i somehow 'knew' i could do this much in the same way that day to day i know that if i was to jump off a high ledge i would break some of my bones. At the time it just felt obvious that i could do this. I didnt atempt this though, since this feeling of simply knowing i could was enough for me at the time. Whether i could have i simply dont know, all i can tell you is that in that instant i knew i could and it would have been the most natural thing in the world.
I closed my eyes and went back into my trance for a while, it seemed like certain peices of information were comming forward a bit more clearly. I had an inner voice say 'mum's in trouble' (she was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 months latter). After that inner voice i opened my eyes, and decided that was enough, i didnt want this intensity of experience and i was getting a little scared, i spent the rest of the night just talking to people in the club.

Ive since wondered if the pill was laced with ketamine, ive heard the drug can bring about experiences such as this but i really dont know. I can only say ive never touched an E before or since that had such a profound effect on me in that way.

me))))no i want examples of how ytou examine evidence and presnt alternative evidence. its YOU who keeps goin on about it laddie...It is the topic of our discussion, of course I keep mentioning it. Focus duendy!

Now I need to produce documented investigations I have done? You are demanding duendy. I don't have anything documented but you know I would adhere to scientific method.


me))))hmmmpgh. ypou can dig that up but not you and your evidence milarchy?Evidence malarchy? What are you talking about?

I have noticed that if I argue with you for long enough your responses become terrible. I guess you lose interest which is understandable.


me)))would sooner chew razors eyeball rollrThats a shame. There are some good points made (with references). You realise that it is hypocritical of you to avoid looking at evidence that you don't like?

You have already been hypocritical regarding the condescending assumptions you complain about.


me))the drug 'Ecstasy' is NOT a psychedelic!No kidding. I did not say it was.


no i dont........)))))))))))))))((((
I suspect you are not trying which is not that suprising.

It is the topic of our discussion, of course I keep mentioning it. Focus duendy!

me)))on what mate...? you dont give no meat!

Now I need to produce documented investigations I have done? You are demanding duendy. I don't have anything documented but you know I would adhere to scientific method.

me))ahhha you dont have anything documented hey, yet harp on and on and on about evidence. that is funny

Evidence malarchy? What are you talking about?

me)))milarchy is aterm we use to ridicule


I have noticed that if I argue with you for long enough your responses become terrible. I guess you lose interest which is understandable.

me)))because you dontreally say anything. so other gets delirious

Thats a shame. There are some good points made (with references). You realise that it is hypocritical of you to avoid looking at evidence that you don't like?

me)))i HAVElooked at it, and it isreally just also saying nothing. the ramblings of a debunker is whatit is. who wtill try pull ANYting out of his hat to protect his safe limited worldyview

You have already been hypocritical regarding the condescending assumptions you complain about.

me)))look dude. me and oters here have been salndered, castigated, abused, spit at, shi on, etc by your crowd. what d'ya expec?

No kidding. I did not say it was.


I suspect you are not trying which is not that suprising.
what....t see your point? i know it off heart. its 'whereszeevidnce' right?...then u go back to sleep

Not at all and it does give me a jolt of pleasure to discover and create things.



Let's say, for example, it was discovered that the affected family had a high amount of some chemical in their blood stream from an unexpected toxin in their water supply and further study revealed the chemical reduced electrical activity in 2 specific parts of the brain. A hypothesis may be that extreme reduction of electrical activity in those parts of the brain leads to a very similar type of visual, audio, tactile, and emotional hallucination and that hypothesis could be tested by applying TMS to those same parts of the brain.
If the TMS results reproduced the experience then not only would the truth have been discovered, the experience would have been nicely reproduced in a controlled setting.
ohhh maaaaan. just what i feared...........!
see. you materialists. you be quite happy to subject these people to yet even MORE stress. accusations of mental illness, and/or actual brain damge, and god knows hat else. anything...A N Y thing than face up to the reality that your materialistic worldviewmay not be as secure as you wish it to be

if i were a member of that family and you cam e out with that crap i'd teel you to go ***% yerself. seriously

me)))on what mate...? you dont give no meat!
You do not like the things I say.


me))ahhha you dont have anything documented hey, yet harp on and on and on about evidence. that is funnyDo I have to have a thesis or a website before I can discuss evidence in a forum? Right. :rolleyes:

me)))milarchy is aterm we use to ridiculeI thought ridicule is what you were complaining about.


me)))because you dontreally say anything. so other gets deliriousYou do not like the things I say because I point out the faults in your logic.


me)))i HAVElooked at it, and it isreally just also saying nothing. the ramblings of a debunker is whatit is. who wtill try pull ANYting out of his hat to protect his safe limited worldyviewWhich is exactly what you are doing duendy. You don't want to see any evidence that will ruin you paranormal fantasies.

That is like me saying I refuse to look at any evidence from a paranormal investigator/parapsychologist or anyone who believes in ufos/psychics ect. That would be absurd. You are a hypocrite duendy. You only want to see what fits your limited worldview


me)))look dude. me and oters here have been salndered, castigated, abused, spit at, shi on, etc by your crowd. what d'ya expec?For the hundredth time, I have not insulted anyone.


what....t see your point? i know it off heart. its 'whereszeevidnce' right?...then u go back to sleep
But that is pathetic duendy. You have no interest in listening to me now because you don’t like what I am going to say.

I get the impression that I am one of the few people in the forum who can be bothered to challenge you on every point. When it comes down to it you are more close-minded than any sceptic.

Your more ‘sophisticated’ methods of investigation involving nothing more than believing nearly everything.

Your main criticism of scientific method is that it involves insulting people and treating people poorly, which is nonsense.

You have no interest in actually exploring anything. You are just trying to reinforce you paranormal fantasies.

You do not like the things I say.

me))haha...you dont know how to say boo to a goose!

Do I have to have a thesis or a website before I can discuss evidence in a forum? Right. :rolleyes:

me))))are you te one not constantly going on about it. where are your papers...sir!

I thought ridicule is what you were complaining about.

me)))))ridicule in that the aburdity of you goin on and on and....about evidence yet....where is YOURS?

You do not like the things I say because I point out the faults in your logic.

me)))but you tink you do, but i dontsee it. you just sort of go: 'oh NO it isn't...' like that

Which is exactly what you are doing duendy. You don't want to see any evidence that will ruin you paranormal fantasies.

me)))you mean like CC usggests. grapsin at straws...anytin...ANYTHING than listening to people tel you of teir eexperience in a sharing way and you accepting to be also in wonder. NO, you got to go after YOUR criteria or 'evidence'. you are so limited in youtr tinking it is becoming farce....thats where thedelirium sets in fo me

That is like me saying I refuse to look at any evidence from a paranormal investigator/parapsychologist or anyone who believes in ufos/psychics ect. That would be absurd. You are a hypocrite duendy. You only want to see what fits your limited worldview

me)))are you talkin about Skin's shit?
what do you for example think of Dr Mack (sits legs crossed waitin fo reply)

For the hundredth time, I have not insulted anyone.

m)))))i know. but you beLONG to the camp that DOES. so by associationnnnn.........


But that is pathetic duendy. You have no interest in listening to me now because you don’t like what I am going to say.

me)))ohhh, go on then. shiver me timbers

I get the impression that I am one of the few people in the forum who can be bothered to challenge you on every point. When it comes down to it you are more close-minded than any sceptic.

me)))buti dont see what your doing as challenge. i see it its like me trying to communicate wid a brick wall. you seem to have no .....intuition about things kid

Your more ‘sophisticated’ methods of investigation involving nothing more than believing nearly everything.

me)))not so. i dont believe YOU for example, nor CC's latest ideas

Your main criticism of scientific method is that it involves insulting people and treating people poorly, which is nonsense.

me)))is it. the scientific fukin method--as interpreted by it perpetrators-- has been prty to some of the worst fukin evils unleashed on humanity......watch you come back and say 'no it isn't' and you will think tat a challenge, right? right!

You have no interest in actually exploring anything. You are just trying to reinforce you paranormal fantasies.
oh for fuks sake. go back and play a video game or summat.this shit is wastin space

ohhh maaaaan. just what i feared...........!
see. you materialists.

There's that stereotype again.


you be quite happy to subject these people to yet even MORE stress. accusations of mental illness, and/or actual brain damge, and god knows hat else. anything...

I wouldn't subject those folks to anything they wouldn't agree / commit to up front. I even explicitly stated this but maybe it wasn't understood. I would however show these folks the truth. If their brains were damaged, I would show the MRI. If they had a toxin in their blood, I would show them the CLS results. If the experience could be reproduced with TMS, I would give them the opportunity to experience it.


A N Y thing than face up to the reality that your materialistic worldviewmay not be as secure as you wish it to be

This might be difficult to understand and I will do my best to simplify the concept. I value truth over my own model of reality. If I am incorrect about something or encounter new information, I can go back and adjust my models with the new evidence. In other words, I don't have any issues with saying "I am wrong / I don't know".

I would invite you to look over all the threads I have posted to and I will assert that in at least 40% of them you will find me issuing statements like "You are correct, my bad / I didn't know that, thanks!".

That's simply not the behavior of someone who is resisting challenges to the 'security' of their world-view. By contrast, a person whom spends alot of time complaining, stereptyping, and never says "My error / I didn't know that" might be very resistent to evidence challenging the 'security' of their world-view.


if i were a member of that family and you cam e out with that crap i'd teel you to go ***% yerself. seriously

Even if it were true and you participated in the exploration and observation every step of the way? That would be resistence to hard fact challenging the security of a world-view and I think you realize this.

As a follow-up question, is this something that really happened within your family? I am suspicious in the presence of such strong defensiveness.

CC, found it impossibly to directly reply to yor post...dont know wy. maybe rthe spacing....who knows. so heres me trying to remember yer points

the familiy in question was featured in a documentary. they are English very down to Earth pople.

CC, you have to understand how vulnerable peopole who go throug these experiences ARE. they aren't UP for insinuations they may be brain damaged, or 'metally ill', or any 'weirder' then they already feel temselves to be owing to te freak nature of teir experience. so the idea of you suggesting scans and what not is abhorrent to me.
for me tat is the materialistic mindsetrpar excellance. they try explain it way in te most abusrd ways....and yet pretend that they'd accept it if they have 'soild evidence'...haha. what like a pice of the spaceship? they DONT accept implants.
so i can see the mindset you represent jumpin thru flamin HOOPS to avoid the state of nont-knowing--and of te possibility that your mateirialistic worldview may be extremely limited

you claim i sterotype you. well let me aks you then: ARE you a materialistic scientist. how do you understand consciousness?

you calim you wan to know 'the truth'....but do you mean within te boundary of materialistic assumptins of 'truth'?

and are you honestly suggestin tat a faily of 4, which includes an age rang of elderly gran, mum, and her two two young sons would ALL experience the same phenomena at te same time and place through drinking toxc water.....? knowing that their report is commensurate with other classic abduction cases of seeing a light object in the sky and missing time etc

is all that INFO NOT included in your search fo truth----that you have to add the absurd idea of toxic water? in England, in the NORTHof all places!! tho admittedly you didn't know that before

CC, found it impossibly to directly reply to yor post...dont know wy. maybe rthe spacing....who knows. so heres me trying to remember yer points

No problem.


the familiy in question was featured in a documentary. they are English very down to Earth pople.

Whats the title of that puppy, is it still floating around?


CC, you have to understand how vulnerable peopole who go throug these experiences ARE.

Some of them may feel vulnerable and others simply dont. It's an incorrect assumption that all such folks do. I am living evidence of that.


they aren't UP for insinuations they may be brain damaged, or 'metally ill', or any 'weirder' then they already feel temselves to be owing to te freak nature of teir experience.

They are up to whatever they agree too. If such a person agrees / gives you permission to test some hyothesis (and mind you this does happen) then a real opportunity exists to ask reality questions.


so the idea of you suggesting scans and what not is abhorrent to me.

Human senses are limited and we use tools that translate what we can't sense into information we can. People will give permission for a deeper look. Look at the folks in that documentary, they gave permission for a documentary.


for me tat is the materialistic mindsetrpar excellance. they try explain it way in te most abusrd ways....and yet pretend that they'd accept it if they have 'soild evidence'...haha.

If you're referring to my example, that was a fictional exemplification of what I meant by reproducing an event. In general, if evidence leads to a hypothesis and testing the hypothesis leads to positive results then that is reality stating "this is true".

Consequently, I don't think it's fantastic experiences that breed skepticism. I've experienced a lifetime of them as I am sure many others have. What does breed skepticism are two things:

1) Making a fantastic conclusion concerning what the experience was.
2) Claiming the experience has a 1:1 correlation with reality.


what like a pice of the spaceship? they DONT accept implants.

Now we're venturing into item 1) of skepticism. In that statement above, a conclusion of visitation by a spacecraft has been concluded. We have lights, we have intense feelings of love, and an hour missing from memory. Assuming the family is telling the truth then all that exists is information, no useful relationships, and no reasonable hypothesis to test. In other words, both yourself and myself don't know what happened.

Regarding the implants, whose "they", what does it mean by "they dont accept implants", and why is that?


so i can see the mindset you represent jumpin thru flamin HOOPS to avoid the state of nont-knowing...

Um, hmmm... my response above (1st paragraph directly contradicts this).


--and of te possibility that your mateirialistic worldview may be extremely limited

As long as I am stereotyped as having a 'materialistic world-view' (and I consequently have no idea what that means), your mental filter will always see my similarity to that stereotype and ignore the differences.


you claim i sterotype you. well let me aks you then: ARE you a materialistic scientist.

I don't know because I don't understand the question. What is a 'materialistic scientist'?


how do you understand consciousness?


I don't. I do know that neurons, the emotional center, genetic memory, conceptual geometry, and perception are very related... or from a more general view, conciousness of the life forms on earth doesn't occur without very specific configurations of compressed and uncompressed energy.


you calim you wan to know 'the truth'....but do you mean within te boundary of materialistic assumptins of 'truth'?

I dont understand the question and if the truth contradicts my present model of reality then it gives me an opportunity to update the model and like I said, thats a jolt of pleasure for me.


and are you honestly suggestin tat a faily of 4, which includes an age rang of elderly gran, mum, and her two two young sons would ALL experience the same phenomena at te same time and place through drinking toxc water.....? knowing that their report is commensurate with other classic abduction cases of seeing a light object in the sky and missing time etc

is all that INFO NOT included in your search fo truth----that you have to add the absurd idea of toxic water? in England, in the NORTHof all places!! tho admittedly you didn't know that before


Not at all and not even remotely. That drinking water bit was a FICTITOUS (meaning made up) example that I used to clarify, by your request, what I meant about reproducing an event.

Now look at that Duendy, you got all worked up and defensive over an example that was fiction and you did it multiple times. The message that it was a made-up example for the benefit of clarification was utterly missed. That's typically a result of when someone doesn't "feel heard". As long as that feeling exists, alot of information gets filtered out until that person "feels heard". So we can improve our progess here, what did I not ankowledge in a way that makes you feel heard? Let me know and I will take corrective action.

No. as fas as i was aware the example you gave was what you'd DO. i am not playin mind games, and am not being defensive. wit this shit i atry to stay as real as possible. i wanted a straight answer of how YOU ould approach REAl peopo who shared with yo an incredible experience in your lives. i wouldn't expect you to fuk wid teir minds giving tem hypothetical clues...like toxic water. tats just too silly for words!

what do i mean by a materialistic scientist?

the stricter ter for this is 'Physicalism'--look it up!

It means the belief that consciousness is PRODUCED by complex matter. you more or less seem to describe tis when i asked you to define consciousness?

if you want to understand how i am exploring the understanding of consciousness please checkout here:

www.deeppirit.com and when tere open up link' MINDBYTES' and you with have in-depth summary of how i am understanding consciousess. and it is NOT a materialistic view noran idealistic view. it is moe 'panpsychist'

No. as fas as i was aware the example you gave was what you'd DO.


also, what do you mean 'reproduce the experience'...??? ”



Let's say, for example, it was discovered that the affected family had a high amount of some chemical in their blood stream from an unexpected toxin in their water supply and further study revealed the chemical reduced electrical activity in 2 specific parts of the brain. A hypothesis may be that extreme reduction of electrical activity in those parts of the brain leads to a very similar type of visual, audio, tactile, and emotional hallucination and that hypothesis could be tested by applying TMS to those same parts of the brain.
If the TMS results reproduced the experience then not only would the truth have been discovered, the experience would have been nicely reproduced in a controlled setting.




I hope seeing all of this at once shows that I was asked a question of clairification (not intent), I provided it, and it was mis-interpreted as an answer to some question of intent.


i am not playin mind games, and am not being defensive. wit this shit i atry to stay as real as possible. i wanted a straight answer of how YOU ould approach REAl peopo who shared with yo an incredible experience in your lives. i wouldn't expect you to fuk wid teir minds giving tem hypothetical clues...like toxic water. tats just too silly for words!

Ahh good :). Just to recap, my original answer to the approach question was:


My response to the family would be to listen to what they said and ask questions to keep them talking.

If my 'BS detector' didn't go off then I would likely commit to something along the lines of:

"I can see that this experience is very important and that you desperately want to know the truth about what happened. I might be able to help you get closer to that truth and it would require a committment from everyone (including myself) to be open about our lives, the positive and negative, and to do whatever it takes to explore the experience in depth, find external evidence, and possibly even reproduce the experience. The best outcome would be to figure out exactly what happened and the worst outcome is to remain where we are today indefinately with a big question mark."


and that was it (again, maybe it helps seeing it all at once).


what do i mean by a materialistic scientist?

the stricter ter for this is 'Physicalism'--look it up!

Looked it up. It said "the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality". In this case I am not a physicalist. In pure vaccum (where there is no matter), space-time exists just fine and this would contradict 'Physicalism'.


It means the belief that consciousness is PRODUCED by complex matter. you more or less seem to describe tis when i asked you to define consciousness?


It's different than the definition that I found; however, the question that was asked of me was how I understand conciousness and my answer was "I dont". I did assert that with known life on earth, conciousness doesn't occur without very specific configurations of matter and energy. Thats what I know. I don't know that it's the interaction between the matter and energy that produces conciousness; however, existing evidence suggests this and I'll speculate that some combination of computer programming, genetic engineering, and TMS usage will eventually yield an answer. At present, nobody can make any kind of firm conclusion (not you, I, or anyone else).


if you want to understand how i am exploring the understanding of consciousness please checkout here:

www.deeppirit.com and when tere open up link' MINDBYTES' and you with have in-depth summary of how i am understanding consciousess. and it is NOT a materialistic view noran idealistic view. it is moe 'panpsychist'

Thanks for sharing your panpsychist position :).

I saw the mindbytes, read the short articles, and a couple of long articles. The author seems to have a selective understanding of various sciences and issued a plethora of statements that raised some red flags. I'll cite two examples.

we say that consciousness is a form of energy that is physical, then we are reducing consciousness (and spirit) to physics. And few of us, unless we are materialists, want to do that.

Here the author states that he (nor many other of 'his kind') wouldn't want to consider a position of consciousness as part of physics. This effectively implies that he finds some other position attractive and would prefer to seek that rather than truth.

This, of course, is the standard materialist fallacy—it completely leaves unaddressed the issue of subjectivity, of how anything in the universe can feel or have a point of view.

Here the author is sterotyping folks (he actually did that in the last quote as well) and is implying that by not addressing subjective experience or not doing so in a way he can understand makes the corresponding party 'materialists'. This guy is building his own walls and extending them across China.


On a sidenote, maybe it will help to see where my model of reality presently is. That would be M-Theory. It's basically a mountain of theories that show the universe is a collection of tiny vibrating strands of exotic energy (some open and some closed) floating around in 11-dimensional hyperspace. Our universe as a whole would be considered a 'brane' (like a membrane), and every smallest point in the brain would be capable of storing and representing a huge amount of information.

At ithe base of M-theory is hard evidence. At its top is hyppthesis and a bit of speculation. The core and quite critical predictions of M-Theory are going to be first tested in 2007 with the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. If they test positive, then we're all going to know that M-Theory is on the right track; otherwise, its back to the drawing board :). Assuming M-Theory (or a future variation) models reality well, that would mean that everything inside our universe (matter, energy, consciousness, etc.) is information rendered by brane vibrations across 11 very unique and robust dimensions. Thats something way beyond 'Physicalism' and although it sounds like fantasy and science fiction even to me, its grounded in real evidence and we are going to have the opportunity to ask reality some great questions next year!

me))))are you te one not constantly going on about it. where are your papers...sir!No, we were discussing evidence. You are trying to leave the discussion by giving inane, childish responses.


me)))))ridicule in that the aburdity of you goin on and on and....about evidence yet....where is YOURS?Hilarious. You are asking me for evidence now.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.


me)))you mean like CC usggests. grapsin at straws...anytin...ANYTHING than listening to people tel you of teir eexperience in a sharing way and you accepting to be also in wonder. NO, you got to go after YOUR criteria or 'evidence'. you are so limited in youtr tinking it is becoming farce....thats where thedelirium sets in fo meWhen you say 'open to wonder' you mean that you are ready to believe anything. Although you dismiss any mundane explanations. This is just as limiting as what you describe.

You naively think that people do not lie, hoax, make mistakes, exaggerate ect.


me)))are you talkin about Skin's shit?
what do you for example think of Dr Mack (sits legs crossed waitin fo reply)We have briefly discussed Dr Mack before duendy. I don't know much about him. I know he was involved in research for abductions.

m)))))i know. but you beLONG to the camp that DOES. so by associationnnnn............aaand more hypocritical assumptions. Thats like me saying you belong to the ufo camp where everyone is a mentally ill. This is what you are complaining about. Remember?

me)))is it. the scientific fukin method--as interpreted by it perpetrators-- has been prty to some of the worst fukin evils unleashed on humanity......watch you come back and say 'no it isn't' and you will think tat a challenge, right? right! Some horrible things have been done in the name of science. Scientific method is just a process for explaining the universe around us. Evil people can use it incorrectly or inhumanely. However it is the best method we have at this stage and it has been very successful.

Your 'sophisticated' method of investigating is not going to cure any diseases.

It's different than the definition that I found; however, the question that was asked of me was how I understand conciousness and my answer was "I dont". I did assert that with known life on earth, conciousness doesn't occur without very specific configurations of matter and energy. Thats what I know. I don't know that it's the interaction between the matter and energy that produces conciousness; however, existing evidence suggests this and I'll speculate that some combination of computer programming, genetic engineering, and TMS usage will eventually yield an answer. At present, nobody can make any kind of firm conclusion (not you, I, or anyone else).

me)))))))alright. you are saying thatnoone knows consciousness. right?

Thanks for sharing your panpsychist position :).

I saw the mindbytes, read the short articles, and a couple of long articles. The author seems to have a selective understanding of various sciences and issued a plethora of statements that raised some red flags. I'll cite two examples.
Here the author states that he (nor many other of 'his kind') wouldn't want to consider a position of consciousness as part of physics. This effectively implies that he finds some other position attractive and would prefer to seek that rather than truth.

me))))))sorry. not cleear what you mean here. can you explain differently please?

Here the author is sterotyping folks (he actually did that in the last quote as well) and is implying that by not addressing subjective experience or not doing so in a way he can understand makes the corresponding party 'materialists'. This guy is building his own walls and extending them across China.

me)))))))as I understand what he is saying it is this: matter-energy can in principle be measured even in its more subtle forms, waves etc. whereas consciousnss can NOT be measured because it is no a thing. is not material. is not-located

On a sidenote, maybe it will help to see where my model of reality presently is. That would be M-Theory. It's basically a mountain of theories that show the universe is a collection of tiny vibrating strands of exotic energy (some open and some closed) floating around in 11-dimensional hyperspace. Our universe as a whole would be considered a 'brane' (like a membrane), and every smallest point in the brain would be capable of storing and representing a huge amount of information.

me))))))now.these strings are strings of ENERGY right? the panpsychist view of consciousness is that consciousness is ALWAYS with matter-energy, bt distinct. it is how metter-energy FEELS/IS conscious

At ithe base of M-theory is hard evidence. At its top is hyppthesis and a bit of speculation. The core and quite critical predictions of M-Theory are going to be first tested in 2007 with the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva. If they test positive, then we're all going to know that M-Theory is on the right track; otherwise, its back to the drawing board :). Assuming M-Theory (or a future variation) models reality well, that would mean that everything inside our universe (matter, energy, consciousness, etc.) is information rendered by brane vibrations across 11 very unique and robust dimensions. Thats something way beyond 'Physicalism' and although it sounds like fantasy and science fiction even to me, its grounded in real evidence and we are going to have the opportunity to ask reality some great questions next year!
wel te way ytou word it you seem to suggest consciousness is a thing? ie., 'inside' universa'

me)))))))alright. you are saying thatnoone knows consciousness. right?

I am saying that nobody understands how conciousness works and we've barely scratch the surface of what it is.


me))))))sorry. not cleear what you mean here. can you explain differently please?

Of course. The author issued a statement that he doesn't like nor want to consider anything that falls under 'materialism'. This implies that he would avoid it all cost even if it was closer to the truth.


me)))))))as I understand what he is saying it is this: matter-energy can in principle be measured even in its more subtle forms, waves etc. whereas consciousnss can NOT be measured because it is no a thing. is not material. is not-located

You understod correctly. He is stating that and he is simultaneously building and extending the 'materialist' sterotype. Consequently, the assertion that consciousness is not a 'thing' isn't correct. Entities, ideas, abstraction, events, emotion, collections, effects, causes, intuition, activities, etc... are all 'things' by very definition of the word. Similarly, there is no way anyone could make the assertion that consciousness is not measurable or non-located... to do so indicates they already know what it is and how it works. I would speculate that consciousness isn't a material and may be the effect of interaction between complex material and energy (this is what existing evidence seems to suggest).

me))))))now.these strings are strings of ENERGY right?

Yep. The form of energy is something unique (i.e. it's not heat, light, sound, etc.). It's some kind of exotic energy and I don't quite understand it enough to explain the distinction (maybe James could help out if he's reading).


the panpsychist view of consciousness is that consciousness is ALWAYS with matter-energy, bt distinct. it is how metter-energy FEELS/IS conscious

Wesmorris is toying around with a similar idea where the interaction of matter-energy of the brain results in a specific effect with some dimension intersecting reality and that dimension is literally consciousness.

Both ideas are very creative and attractive. A question I would ask is if we remove memory (which is a known and proven function of the brain), what happens to consciousness in the panpsychist model?

wel te way ytou word it you seem to suggest consciousness is a thing? ie., 'inside' universa'

Technically it is a 'thing' no matter how it works (that's just the English definition of the word 'thing'). Assuming M-Theory or a variant is true, consciousness might be collections of information that are part of the brane. That would make them configurations of strings vibrating across all 11 dimensions. In that model, there's no real inside or outside that I can discern. Lots of intersection though.

Giambattista, Do you remember the private message I sent you about my extraordinary prayer experience? Though it isn't about precognition, this was a major psi event and that's likely close enough.

Do you think you could copy the text about that experience and paste it on this thread? I don't want to write it all out again!!

Thanks Man.

Id like to hear about your experience too agitprop, sounds interesting :)

I am saying that nobody understands how conciousness works and we've barely scratch the surface of what it is.
Of course. The author issued a statement that he doesn't like nor want to consider anything that falls under 'materialism'. This implies that he would avoid it all cost even if it was closer to the truth.
You understod correctly. He is stating that and he is simultaneously building and extending the 'materialist' sterotype. Consequently, the assertion that consciousness is not a 'thing' isn't correct. Entities, ideas, abstraction, events, emotion, collections, effects, causes, intuition, activities, etc... are all 'things' by very definition of the word. Similarly, there is no way anyone could make the assertion that consciousness is not measurable or non-located... to do so indicates they already know what it is and how it works. I would speculate that consciousness isn't a material and may be the effect of interaction between complex material and energy (this is what existing evidence seems to suggest).

me))))))If consciousness IS a thing--a material thing--as u seem to suggest. where then is is located?

Yep. The form of energy is something unique (i.e. it's not heat, light, sound, etc.). It's some kind of exotic energy and I don't quite understand it enough to explain the distinction (maybe James could help out if he's reading).

me)))))))but it IS still energy...?


Wesmorris is toying around with a similar idea where the interaction of matter-energy of the brain results in a specific effect with some dimension intersecting reality and that dimension is literally consciousness.

me)))))))well not according to what me and de Quincey say---that consciousness is NOT a 'dimension'-, for consciousness is not measureable

Both ideas are very creative and attractive. A question I would ask is if we remove memory (which is a known and proven function of the brain), what happens to consciousness in the panpsychist model?

me))))))if someone loses memory they re STILL conscious aren't they??

Technically it is a 'thing' no matter how it works (that's just the English definition of the word 'thing'). Assuming M-Theory or a variant is true, consciousness might be collections of information that are part of the brane. That would make them configurations of strings vibrating across all 11 dimensions. In that model, there's no real inside or outside that I can discern. Lots of intersection though.
no. i really think you are not grasping that consciousness is NOT material/energy. it is HOWmatterr-energy feels.

me))))))If consciousness IS a thing--a material thing--as u seem to suggest. where then is is located?

A 'thing' by definition of the English language doesn't make it 'material'. I hope that point is understood. In the paragraph above I speculated that consciousness might be an effect. Mix electrons, heat, a massive amount of neurons, synapses, and a bit of orchestration and that may produce the effect of consciousness. That wouldn't be a material (like cloth). It would be an effect (much like nuclear fusion is an effect and not an actual material).

If this speculation turned out close to the truth then consciousness might be located dynamically as part of the volume of the brain / medulla amblangada.


me)))))))but it IS still energy...?