How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Precognition..
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Precognition..

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


0 posted 07-11-2008 05:15 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Precognition always has interested me and I decided to do a little bit more reserch about it.. here's what I found...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

J.W.Dunne, aeronautics engineer, went into study during the 20th century. Years of study and he found out that he had such ability of precognition due to his dreams. He said that he saw things that came true the next day in the press. Also that everyone had such ability do to they're personal dreams. Do you find this to be true or not?

Like usual there is always a skeptic to judge on a subject. Here Robert Todd Carrol therorizes that precognitions are just a part of the memory sheme and gathering infromation.  

"Examples include thinking of a specific individual right before the individual thought of calls on the phone. Human memory has a tendency to remember the instances where the individual thought of calls and forget the instances where the individual calls when not thought of just prior to calling."

My personal opinion on this is that this is true. I believe in this also.

Do you guys believe in both of these theorys, as do I? Tell me what you think.. But please, I like to read but make your points short and sweet.. One or two examples are fine with me; I don't need ten lol.

Hope I gave you something to think about.

Have a nice day!
~Zach~

"And so the lion fell in love with the lamb....,"he murmured. "What a stupid lamb," I sighed. "What a sick, masochistic lion."

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


1 posted 07-11-2008 06:04 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Ugh you guys don't know how much of a headache I got from typing this bullitian.. lol

Owwwe...

I need some Asprin now..

lol

~Zach~

"And so the lion fell in love with the lamb....,"he murmured. "What a stupid lamb," I sighed. "What a sick, masochistic lion."

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


2 posted 07-12-2008 06:39 AM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Do you guys believe in both of these theorys, as do I?


No wonder you have a headache - you canít believe in both theories because each is mutually exclusive - itís like saying you both believe in fairies and donít believe in fairies at the same time.

Save the Aspirin and ditch one of the theories.

Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


3 posted 07-12-2008 12:11 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Lol... wow.. yeah... ditching one theoriy would prolly help a little..

I'd have to agree with J.W.Dunne..

Thanks for the inlightenment.. I guess that headache was disrupting my judgement.. lol


What do you think about this topic Mr.Grinch?  

~Zach~

"And so the lion fell in love with the lamb....,"he murmured. "What a stupid lamb," I sighed. "What a sick, masochistic lion."

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


4 posted 07-13-2008 09:52 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Interesting set of questions, Zach.  I've been interested in them since I was a kid.  When I was 17-18 I knew Charlie Tart, who did some interesting research and writing on altered states and parapsychology and who was a student of J.B.Rhine.  I was in High School at the time and had a crush on one of his lab assistants.  Charlie was a very serious guy about his research, and went to considerable lengths to make sure that his design was clean and that his statistical methods were good.  He was doing honest science, and he did it honestly.

     There are odd folks who are trying to cheat other people by putting on phony displays of talent, and Charlie was as upset with them than anybody else, if I remember correctly.  It's certainly possible to fake psychic ability easily enough should you want to do so, with palm readings and tarot readings.  If you want to check that out, there are articles on how to do it in skeptic's magazines.  With a little bit of practice, you too can look as though you're communicating with the dead or reading the future with a fair amount of skill.

     If that's all there was to the parapsychology, e.s.p., alternative ways of looking at reality thing, we'd have a hard time justifying a case for it.  There might be one, but it would be almost impossible to sort out from the background clutter.  Here might be an interesting place to stat, though, if you want to poke around a bit, with a man named Rupert Sheldrake, who's got a lot of scientific folk foaming at the mouth.  One of the Editors of "Nature," a very well respected peer reviewed journal wrote an unsigned editorial (that meant it didn't have to pass editorial review before it was published, right?) suggesting that Sheldrake's books ought to be treated like Galileo's and burned on bonfires.

     Unfortunately, Sheldrake's science background seems to be as good as anybody's, though his theory-making and ideas are extremely different indeed.

     So here:
http://www.sheldrake.org/Research/sevenexperiments/


     This is a link to information that Sheldrake suggests anybody can try, experiments anybody can try, to check out what the truth may be about certain things.  The one that I found most interesting was the experiment about whether people actually knew they were being stared at, and what the conditions were under which they could tell and couldn't tell.  Did you have to be able to see the person who was staring to know that you were being stared at or not?

     The experiment was carried out.

     How it turned out is something that will tell you as much about the state of the discussion about the reality of precognition as anything that anybody could tell you directly.  Simply to look at the way the experiment worked out and how people commented back and forth is a priceless lesson in what rational people are willing to do to each other to defend a belief.

     I'd be fascinated to hear what your reaction is, if you have the energy and the curiosity to check it out.

Best to you, Z., Bob K
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


5 posted 07-13-2008 10:38 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     As I wrote the above, it struck me that while we are all to prepared to doubt Precognition, the real problem may rest elsewhere.

     I believe mankind has a potentially much greater issue in his belief in post-cognition, the belief that after the event human beings actually think at all rather than retreat to pre-prepared entrenched positions from which we  lob bombshells at each other without noticing or particularly caring where they land.  Certainly the belief in post-cognition has done man as much harm as the belief in pre-cognition.

     Thoughts?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


6 posted 07-13-2008 11:26 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

quote:
Certainly the belief in post-cognition has done man as much harm as the belief in pre-cognition.


So the belief that people can actually think has done us harm?  Or is it the rarity of thinking well that has done us harm?  I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here.


Stephen
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


7 posted 07-14-2008 02:18 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The rarity and the certainty in the excellence of the thinking that we actually do, when so much of it seems to be recycled and rechewed old belief, not necessarily religious but philosophical as well, cut and pasted in the hope that it might fit.  Sometimes it actually does.  Often it is a retrenchment of comfortable old positions stated as though they were startling new insights.  I would put myself first on my own list of people to be criticized here.  I don't have many interesting intellectual things to say, sometimes an interesting way of saying them.  Mostly not even that.

     Don't mean to be obscure here, Stephanos, simply an somewhat jaundiced observation at the end of a day when all the words are not standing up and jumping through hoops for me the way they're supposed to.  One of the days when the grandiose assumptions crawl up behind me and knock me over the head with the two by four I left in the garden yesterday morning.  Sunday in LA.

     Best to you, though, Stephanos, and your lovely wife and fine children.  BobK.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


8 posted 07-14-2008 02:20 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     The rarity and the certainty in the excellence of the thinking that we actually do, when so much of it seems to be recycled and rechewed old belief, not necessarily religious but philosophical as well, cut and pasted in the hope that it might fit.  Sometimes it actually does.  Often it is a retrenchment of comfortable old positions stated as though they were startling new insights.  I would put myself first on my own list of people to be criticized here.  I don't have many interesting intellectual things to say, sometimes an interesting way of saying them.  Mostly not even that.

     Don't mean to be obscure here, Stephanos, simply an somewhat jaundiced observation at the end of a day when all the words are not standing up and jumping through hoops for me the way they're supposed to.  One of the days when the grandiose assumptions crawl up behind me and knock me over the head with the two by four I left in the garden yesterday morning.  Sunday in LA.

     Best to you, though, Stephanos, and your lovely wife and fine children.  BobK.

     By the way, what do you think of my post number 4 above?  Have you done any thinking about that sort of stuff?
Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


9 posted 07-14-2008 01:35 PM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

BobK.. first thanks for reading this and sharing your view points and thoughts I appretteate it..But my question is that..

How is chemicals relative to precognation? I didn't quite understand that.

I would give you my veiw points into scientific veiw points. But the problum with that is.. i have none at the moment

But I have, once again, another veiw point.. could precognition go into religon?

I mean our minds (how i see it) determaines what is and what isn't by using religon and science.. Am I correct on this?

Any thoughts?

Z,  

"And so the lion fell in love with the lamb....,"he murmured. "What a stupid lamb," I sighed. "What a sick, masochistic lion."

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


10 posted 07-14-2008 04:07 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Zach,

          Not all science is chemistry.  Not all experiments have to do with mixing chemicals.  None of these experiments have anything to do with chemicals on any level that I can talk about or understand, and none of them were designed to have anything to do with using or mixing chemicals or needing to use them at all.  Only people.  Try looking at the web site, read a little bit, and think about what the folks are saying.

     The experiments are pretty simple to try, once you read them over a few times, especially the one about watching people.  Show it to a friend and talk it over and see what you can figure out between the two of you if you have trouble.  No chemistry, though.  I don't get chemistry myself.

Sincerely yours, BobK.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 07-14-2008 04:40 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Zach,

          Not all science is chemistry.  Not all experiments have to do with mixing chemicals.  None of these experiments have anything to do with chemicals on any level that I can talk about or understand, and none of them were designed to have anything to do with using or mixing chemicals or needing to use them at all.  Only people.  Try looking at the web site, read a little bit, and think about what the folks are saying.

     The experiments are pretty simple to try, once you read them over a few times, especially the one about watching people.  Show it to a friend and talk it over and see what you can figure out between the two of you if you have trouble.  No chemistry, though.  I don't get chemistry myself.

Sincerely yours, BobK.

quote:
Zack:

I mean our minds (how i see it) determaines what is and what isn't by using religon and science.. Am I correct on this?


     I'm not sure I can say, Zach.  Most folks think that science is a tool for figuring out how things and people work.  I think that's probably true. It's a pretty good tool for certain kinds of things, just like a hammer is a good tool for certain kinds of things.  In science there's always been a question about what kind of things science is a good tool for.  A hammer is good for pounding nails and pulling nails, not very good for carving wood.

     Scientists will tell you that science is better at what scientists call "hard" science, like psysics and chemistry, where you can make theories with math and test them with math and use experiments to check out whether all the details go where they're supposed to go.  The more difficult it is to form a theory  and test it mathematically and then confirm your predictions with experiments in the real world, the harder it is to use science as a tool to investigate the subject.  Sometimes people only investigate the parts of a subject that can be tested with science, and pretend that they can understand the whole subject that way.  For many years people tried to study psychology that way, and they learned a lot by doing it.  Some of us think, though, that they only investigated the part of psychology that you can use mathematics to talk about and skipped the rest because it was took odd to be talked about in mathematics.  We really don't know for sure.  It's the same with sociology and with many other studies.

     Science only covers part of the ground.

     Originally, I thing everything started with religion.  People didn't understand much, and they put gods in charge of everything they didn't know, so they could control things by buttering up the gods with worship.
As religion got more sophisticated, certain real mysteries in the way the world worked came to cluster at the center of the subject.  What's death?  What's right?  Why is that right?  How should I live my life?

     After a while, religion seemed to split into two separate streams, one was religion, the other was philosophy.  The two streams, I suspect never entirely did come apart, so they will often study the same sorts of things, but while science looks at the world from the point of view of matter, of the outside of things, and then works its way inward, religion and philosophy tend to look at things from the inside and tend to work their way out.

     If you were going to look at things historically, I suspect you see the study of Religion first, then the Study of philosophy branching off from that, and then the study of the sciences branching one by one off the study of philosophy...

     So the answer to your question, as I understand it, is that you need not simply religion and science, but philosophy as well.  And then you need patience for all the times when you're going to feel that they should all go for a vacation together someplace and get their silly stories straight, because they fight amongst themselves something terrible, and they allow biting and eye-gouging and hair-pulling and everything.  As far as self respecting areas of knowledge go, they all ought to be ashamed of themselves.

     Unfortunately, they all have a piece of it right, and it's our job to try and figure it out, at least for now, until the next time they take off the gloves and go at it again.
And that's what I think.
Falling rain
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 01-31-2008
Posts 2165
Small town, Illinois


12 posted 07-20-2008 10:05 AM       View Profile for Falling rain   Email Falling rain   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Falling rain's Home Page   View IP for Falling rain

Interesting thoughts BobK.. Never thought that before.. hmm.. now to come and think of it philosophy has to play a role in our thinking patterns.... lol ironic isn't it? We're talking and questioning it in Philosophy 101.. haha.. that was humoring for 2.5.. ha....
Anyway back to the subject.. Anymore thoughts about Precognition, or how are thinking patterns are, Anyone?
I'm curious to see what others think..

~Zach~

"When you cried I wiped away all your tears.
" When you screaed I'd fight away all of your fears..
And I held your hand through all of these years

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Precognition.. Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors