Could lucidity be bad?

[quote]

Quote:

---

Labs are not necessary (nor, as you say, are they effective - as they are simply inappropriate) for the disproval of precognition. Logical argument is all that's required. Considering time and our limitation within it, tapping into the future beyond that which is possible (substantiated prediction) from present or past-time experiences (which is what unaided precog is), excepting the chance success of guesswork, is proven impossible. Such cognitive time-travel simply is logically impossible.

---

Dear Alucinor,

You do realize, of course, that you have just tossed out science and returned to a mode of thinking more than 25 hundred years old -- the ancient and obsolete version of Platonism which supposes that all Actual Existing Things are mere secondary phenomena to the much more essential Core Structures embodied in Thought -- the Logos. For thousands of years such 'thinking' would be an impediment to True Science, as the Philosophers would be content to sit around their studies and contemplate things purely out of their Minds and supposing them to be True simply because they seem to be consistent with everything else purely out of their minds. "Out of their Minds" alright! It took such as Galileo and Bacon to begin toward a consencus in which we would finally acknowledge that we need to look at actual Emperical Events, at the behavior of particulars in order to deduce our general principals, and that often enough to matter, what we had simply thought, when examined in the light of actual occurances, was not always absolutely so. Thus the Platonic Spheres became the Ellipses of Kepler.

So, yes, it is the Eternal Dodge of the Atheist that no amount of emperical evidence for Things Spiritual will ever matter since it does not agree with some self confined and bigoted form of Logic that does not admit to Reality but of only the most confined and self-considered pseudo-premises. They tell themselves that since the Future has not happened yet, nobody can see the Future. Well, does that not all fall apart the very moment that somebody documents an instance of Precogitation? Logic is spurious without Data. There are simply too many instances of Precognition on the books for it to be dismissed out of hand because some bigot doesn't think so for bigotted reasons.

Felt the need to correct myself here. I referred to "skeptics" in my last post, when in fact, I meant "cynics."

Skepticism is defined as a questioning or doutbful attitude. I actually consider myself to be a (questioning) skeptic in most matters. To the point where I am likely to research, with an open mind, most things before I'm inclined to believe or disbelieve them.

I firmly believe that skepticism offers a healthy and beneficial perspective in most areas of life.

Cynicism, on the other hand, is defined as scornful or jaded negativity, and general mistrust. I find this term to be a more accurate portayal of my last point. That disbelief for the sake of disbelief rarely leads to further knowledge or clearer understanding.

Just wanted to clear that up for the record, and offer my apologies in case I accidentily insulted any fellow skeptics out there.

:wink:

I would like to just throw in the fact that the distant viewing issue was a government ran program.
They have means beyond wich we don't have and don't even know about. (they say anything you see on television you can guess the government is close to ten years ahead of that.) This is just what I heard on the discovery channel. Not fact.
My point is, had the government gotten any results from this experiment the general populas would never know other wise.

So who knows what is going on behing closed doors. They know what is behind ours, but it does not work both ways. :shock:
Holy cow! I sound paraniod (I always feel like somebodies watching me....Man I get no privacy)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElijahJones
I also liked Howetzer's point. If his mind is giving back to him his mother for a time, why choose lucidity where you fly and talk to dolphins over that? I would'nt. And if those dreams turn into a journey to the center of human existence good for him, he will probably be even more respectful of the opinions of others than I have seen him to be already.

---

Thank you ElijahJones, very humbling. :bowdown:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Leo Volont
You do realize, of course, that you have just tossed out science and returned to a mode of thinking more than 25 hundred years old.

---

I've done no such 'tossing out'. As i said, my neglect of science is only in this very specific instance, due to its inappropriateness. How might a laboratory be an appropriate means of testing an airy-fairy idea such as prophecy? Labs do not test untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses. In calling my choosing logical thought (rather than laboratory experimentation) "tossing out" all of science, it follows that you are tossing out everything BUT science. Do you claim a lab is always the one and only answer? If there can be no instance in which non-lab-based thinking is appropriate, science would be the only branch of thought. What a ridiculous situation that'd be.

And please don't call me a bigot, in conclusion to a post so tightly wrapped in extremely pretentious irrelavent informativeness that it in fact informs us of nothing. I've made you the effort of reading the first twelve-or-so sentences of most of your posts, and from them wouldn't have expected such cheap name-calling shots in response to my polite, merely disagreed-with, posts.

I do wish to be open-minded, but when it comes to time-travel, my mind's extent of openness seems not to matter - there's simply nothing out there entering that convinces me. Maybe this is closedmindedness, but i'm not going to accept a belief in the seeming ridiculous just to call myself open-minded. If that's what openness is, it's an unhealthy, dangerous thing. Conservatism kills! (i do get carried away to unrelated tangents sometimes sorry)

But please, at least keep it polite. It's not easy for me to restrain my powerful urges to abuse, but i manage. In fututre, try to do me, and your moral elements, the favour.