Originally Posted by snoop
2. Even if we aren't totally trapped within the bounds of time, why does that mean we should be able to bring back information regarding the future and communicate that to ourselves? Similarly, why would this work with going to the past either?
Hi Snoop. I didn't suggest that 'not being totally trapped within the bounds of time' implies that precognition is possible. The implication goes the other way. I started with a very large number of personal precognitive experiences, and tried my best to understand how this is possible, with notably limited success.
Originally Posted by snoop
3. Why are empathy and precognition related? Even if we assume precognition is a real phenomenon, how on earth have you come to the conclusion that they're related to one another?
Precognition, in my experience, requires a shift in identity similar to what is practiced in jnana yoga. For me, this shift is relational. I temporarily become something that is like a hybrid of myself and another individual or group of people, and from that standpoint precognition happens easily. For the most part I've always been asleep while doing that, but it wouldn't necessarily work that way for other people.
Originally Posted by snoop
4. Empathy is pretty well accounted for with mirror neurons and evolutionary psychology. Are those exact answers? No, but it isn't fair to say science has no idea how empathy is happening. That's either a deliberate lie or you need to do some research on this.
You left out what I suggested I meant by empathy being real, though admittedly I didn't flesh it out very well. I said "it is possible to actually mentally touch another person, to actually experience something of being in their shoes". I don't mean a mental and emotional simulation, I mean reaching across the air gap and actually being the other person a little bit, and getting information that way that can't plausibly be inferred through other means. No, science has no idea how something like that works.
I'd call it telepathy instead of empathy, but most people already have some idea about what telepathy would be like, which is quite a bit more like sending a mental signal or message, as if holding a flashcard up. Then they start suggesting ways to test for it which don't make sense for the kind of thing I'm talking about, which happens at a much more heartfelt and intuitive level.
When lying or ignorance appear to be two possible explanations for a statement, misunderstanding what the person meant is often another possibility, no?
Originally Posted by snoop
5. How do you know it's possible to objectively verify precognition is a real phenomenon if we haven't been able to yet?
I've written extensively elsewhere about why it is difficult to verify in a controlled lab experiment. There are a lot of real phenomena that we individually have objective knowledge of which didn't come to us in a peer reviewed manner though, and which aren't necessarily known and accepted by all other people.
I say its possible because I've verified it for myself, have known other people who have verified it for themselves, and I think I have at least a halfway decent understanding of what the difficulties would be using a clinical trial type methodology.
Originally Posted by snoop
I'm fine with entertaining the idea of a lot of these things, I think it's necessary and fun to do. What I don't think we should do is just assert things and not even attempt to conceive of a way that we can verify or attempt to verify the claims or connections we make between things. You've got to at least have a loose idea of why something is the way it is (like empathy and precognition being closely related, for example).
You'll note I have well over a thousand posts, most of them on the subject of empathy/telepathy/precognition. I guess its safe to assume you haven't read a large portion of them. So I don't think you're in a very good position to judge what I've done, attempted to do, or should do.
In fairness to you, what I've said in my last couple of posts isn't even remotely adequate for another person to understand what I'm talking about. But I don't have time to try to flesh all that out again, I have jobs and three kids to deal with. I'm shirking other responsibilities just to get this reply in. There are also relevant facts that I won't post, because they're personal, and involve other people.
I don't expect you to take me at my word for anything, it would be unreasonable for you to do that. My comments were aimed more at others who already know a lot of what I'm talking about.
Here are the general requirements that I know of for having an empathetic/telepathetic/precognitive experience, as I've experienced it:
1. There needs to be a significant intersection in two people's aims or motives, and it helps a lot if it something at least one of them cares about a lot, such as a sincere and serious life question.
2. There needs to be something the other person is or knows which helps resolve this desire or concern, such as by providing a different perspective which is possible through the experience.
3. The precognition is almost incidental, it tends to just happen in this context, to one or both people, as a side effect of that other connection.
4. It helps a lot if at least one of the people is predisposed to this sort of thing. But if '1' and '2' are strong enough, I guess it can happen with almost anyone.
5. ????
There's an element to this that isn't totally voluntary and controllable, which is part of what makes it hard to study. I don't think it should just be forced. The subject that is the grounds for the sharing, and the results of the experience, may be more important than satisfying our curiosity about weird phenomena.
I've had few of these kinds of experiences in the last four years or so. I had hundreds of precognitive experiences in the four or so years before that. I don't know if I've lost the knack for it, or if I'm just not sufficiently interested any more. It hasn't gone away completely though.
To a significant extent the "requirements" I've described are specific to my personality, though I think they reflect underlying principles that are true in general. I'm probably open to trying this with you, if you want to try to validate it that way, rather than wading through 100 pages of explanations. I've had mixed results with that though. It has worked a few times, but failed a few times also. Usually when it works it has been more spontaneous, with friends, relatives, and coworkers.
I really have almost no more time for discussion, even though I wish I did. So if things I'm saying are jumping out to you as probable BS, I suggest you should just regard them as probable BS and leave it at that. Certainly the vast bulk of what sees encounters on the internet about paranormal phenomena is BS, I guess you and I would agree about that. If there are specific points you're especially and sincerely interested in and would like clarification on, or want to discuss further, you're welcome to ask though.
Regards.
|
|
Bookmarks