Explain this, you empiricists

[Bozo Erectus]

If you want to show a link between two events you are going to have to back it up with proof. Burden of proof lies with you.

Im still being asked for proof Since when do you need proof before asking a question? If the only questions ever asked had had to do with things for which there was physical evidence, the world we're living in right now would be a vastly different place.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But, despite how we seem, we aren't. All that's being said is that, given the overwhelming lack of evidence, there's no reason to believe that precognition is anything more than a coincidence.

I have no problem with someone saying, "You know what, IMO, most cases of precognition are merely coincidence." 'Most', as opposed to 'all'. Thats awfully black and white thinking isnt it? I thought shades of grey were all the rage? You dont know 'all' so you cant speak authoritatively on every single thing that takes place under the sun.

 

[C~G]

Sorry, warpus but I think I know exactly what is going on here.

I can see your point clear and loud.

I just tried to point out that it needs further study because of numerous reasons.

We just have to agree that we disagree of the possible significance between these events and the importance of studying such relations.
Not only from the perspective of physical world and strange metaphysical aspects but also from the aspects of psychology and our understanding of the reality.

 

[Veritass]

Do you believe that enough is known about 'everything', to categorically state that all apparent cases of accurate precognition are nothing but coindidence?

On a scientific level, I believe that no good example of accurate, repeated precognition has been shown, and enough counter-examples of charlatans have been shown. Thus, I believe that there is no evidence of reliable (and thus useful) precognition.

On a spiritual level, I believe that we are all connected to one Universal Consciousness, and thus we get peeks at these types of things all the time. We get enough peeks to keep up our wonder at the universe, but not enough that it would remove the wonder.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

On a scientific level, I believe that no good example of accurate, repeated precognition has been shown, and enough counter-examples of charlatans have been shown. Thus, I believe that there is no evidence of reliable (and thus useful) precognition.

This is your Western upbringing and education speaking.

On a spiritual level, I believe that we are all connected to one Universal Consciousness, and thus we get peeks at these types of things all the time. We get enough peeks to keep up our wonder at the universe, but not enough that it would remove the wonder.

That however was Veritass speaking

 

[CartesianFart]

We just have to agree that we disagree of the possible significance between these events and the importance of studying such relations.
Not only from the perspective of physical world and strange metaphysical aspects but also from the aspects of psychology and our understanding of the reality.

Sorry to interject your discussion,but since you talk of having a perspective of the physical world,how can you percieve or contemplate a metaphyisical one?You seem to correspond two different extremes(material vs ideal) as having the same rule.

 

[warpus]

Im still being asked for proof Since when do you need proof before asking a question? If the only questions ever asked had had to do with things for which there was physical evidence, the world we're living in right now would be a vastly different place.

Asking questions is fine - but you need proof to make a claim. If you don't have any, just say: "I don't know", and we'll respond with: "Ok then, coincidence".

I have no problem with someone saying, "You know what, IMO, most cases of precognition are merely coincidence." 'Most', as opposed to 'all'. Thats awfully black and white thinking isnt it? I thought shades of grey were all the rage? You dont know 'all' so you cant speak authoritatively on every single thing that takes place under the sun.

Since there hasn't been any conclusive evidence nor a working theory about/involving precognition, 'all' is the correct word to use here. If there was just ONE case of precognition in which a direct link was shown, only then could we say 'most'. Since, so far, all such cases we've examined have not yielded a direct link between the two events, we can extrapolate and assume 'all'.

It's much like gravity. We're not directly observing every single act of gravity pulling an object towards the Earth... but we can with certainty say "All instances of objects falling towards the ground can be explained via gravity". We aren't going to use the word 'most', simply because we did not examine every single instance of an object faling towards the ground. Some invisible force might be pulling apples down in some orchard in Luxemburg. Who knows. Until an exception to the rule is found and examined, we are going to use the word 'all'.

We just have to agree that we disagree of the possible significance between these events and the importance of studying such relations.
Not only from the perspective of physical world and strange metaphysical aspects but also from the aspects of psychology and our understanding of the reality.

I never said anything about a possible significance of such a link being true, nor did I say that we shouldn't be studying this stuff.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be making statements that can't be backed up.

If you want to say there is something "weird" going on, do your research, study the phenomenon, then come back with something more concrete.

 

[Eiba]

I have no problem with someone saying, "You know what, IMO, most cases of precognition are merely coincidence." 'Most', as opposed to 'all'. Thats awfully black and white thinking isnt it? I thought shades of grey were all the rage? You dont know 'all' so you cant speak authoritatively on every single thing that takes place under the sun.

Of course I don't know 'all'. I don't know 'all' of anything. Therefore I draw conclusions based on the sample that I have, as well as my (admittedly far from complete) understanding of physics and biology to conclude that there has most likely never been an instance of precognition.

Do you object to people who say that apples never fall upwards? You've not seen 'all' apples fall, so you can't speak authoritatively about how they fall, right?

Edit: Great, a crosspost using the exact same example. Hmph.

 

[C~G]

since you talk of having a perspective of the physical world,how can you percieve or contemplate a metaphyisical one?You seem to correspond two different extremes(material vs ideal) as having the same rule.

Maybe they have?
We don't know the underlying principles but it would seem logical that what appears in physical world comes from the metaphysical world. I think you can probably agree with this. So if we understand some principles that are links between our internal and external reality we might better understand rules of the metaphysical world.

For me the whole issue here is more of question of philosophy of mind than anything else. I don't go further here in this issue since I have explained already some things that I see related to this issue.

Main goal is to destroy the whole nasty division between body and mind, internal and external, subjective and objective and also understand how it even affects our scientific standards.

For me the term "precognition" has to do with certain thought patterns and behavioural models that automatically sets us to do certain things without us consciously knowing. By talking to friend about the dream, bozo's brain seemed to signal that there's significance to it beyond normal "random" dream. And I would like to know why. The interesting part is of course that the dream came even true to him, enforcing this significance.

I don't know does anyone actually understand my gibberish about this but at least I tried.

If you want to say there is something "weird" going on, do your research, study the phenomenon, then come back with something more concrete.

And I absolutely agree with you. Now, maybe someone gets funding for such thing.

 

[warpus]

For me the term "precognition" has to do with certain thought patterns and behavioural models that automatically sets us to do certain things without us consciously knowing. By talking to friend about the dream, bozo's brain seemed to signal that there's significance to it beyond normal "random" dream. And I would like to know why.

Sounds to me like this is a psychological question, not a physical one.

My explanation, even though I'm not a psychologist.. nor did I ever take a psychology course: Humans like to attach meaning & significance to events.

 

[CartesianFart]

understand some principles that are links between our internal and external reality we might better understand rules of the metaphysical world.

Impossible!Because the means of representation on regarding the internal/external is already a metaphysical one.One must not try to reason traditional meaning of the word "internal" and "external" since metaphysics hold the monopoly on its uses.

For me the whole issue here is more of question of philosophy of mind than anything else. I don't go further here in this issue since I have explained already some things that I see related to this issue.

And many philosophers have done so in years past.It is a dead-end endeavor,is my stance.

Main goal is to destroy the whole nasty division between body and mind, internal and external, subjective and objective and also understand how it even affects our scientific standards.

Good luck.Reflections on the words such as mind,body,internal,external or other such things bring obscurity.I think the Logical Postivists have axe these concepts in philosophy.It amaze me people don't realize this.

For me the term "precognition" has to do with certain thought patterns and behavioural models that automatically sets us to do certain things without us consciously knowing. By talking to friend about the dream, bozo's brain seemed to signal that there's significance to it beyond normal "random" dream. And I would like to know why. The interesting part is of course that the dream came even true to him, enforcing this significance.

What is precognition?Is it something that can be measured or weighed?Why confuse yourself by trying to figure out consciousness with behavioural models when in fact that they are different based on being governed by different methodical laws.Conciousness is something under the method of the theoretical one and Behaviour is one of Empirical.

I don't know does anyone actually understand my gibberish about this but at least I tried.

Same here.

 

[C~G]

Sounds to me like this is a psychological question, not a physical one..

That is the whole point, for me the starting point is psychology.
Or did you expect me to try to show that there was some kind direct physical link between Bozo's dream and the blackout.
Humans are actors in certain enviroment. They continuosly interact with it even without noticing it consciously. Personally I even see the whole concept of consciousness as totally distorted made by our own reasoning while percepting the world (and ourselves) which seems to us be the most obvious facts. IMO from deep down it is a mere illusion, but that is again another discussion.

My explanation, even though I'm not a psychologist.. nor did I ever take a psychology course: Humans like to attach meaning & significance to events.

Yes, and for some events not. Some they see as reasonable while others irrational, Or some of them might even write them off as mere "coincidence" based into rules they have outlined themselves.

Impossible!Because the means of representation on regarding the internal/external is already a metaphysical one.One must not try to reason traditional meaning of the word "internal" and "external" since metaphysics hold the monopoly on its uses.

It is so as long as you allow it to be so. Meaning that there isn't much difference. Metaphysical concepts are usually nothing but imagination but the whole thing here is to try to reason through them by looking for our bias and behaviour towards certain events, and how they occur.

And many philosophers have done so in years past.It is a dead-end endeavor,is my stance.

Good luck.Reflections on the words such as mind,body,internal,external or other such things bring obscurity.I think the Logical Postivists have axe these concepts in philosophy.It amaze me people don't realize this.

Philosophers before this day has been idealists, while I favor such people as Daniel Dennett. It's about biology and neuroscience, and also about the evolution of thinking also in the field of cultural darwinism.

What is precognition?Is it something that can be measured or weighed?Why confuse yourself by trying to figure out consciousness with behavioural models when in fact that they are different based on being governed by different laws.Conciousness is something under the method of the theoretical one and Behaviour is one of Empirical.

And my believe is that they are one and the same. Look above for the answers. From my post, not from heaven.

Same here

You do make lot of sense.
We just see things little bit differently, but not that much.

 

[warpus]

That is the whole point, for me the starting point is psychology.
Or did you expect me to try to show that there was some kind direct physical link between Bozo's dream and the blackout.

So there we have it then, a working explanation of what occured.

1. Bozo has a dream.
2. Bozo remembers the dream and thinks it is significant enough to discuss it with a friend.
3. Blackout occurs, independent of the dream.

2. explains the psychological aspect and 3. explains the physical aspect of the event.

What you are looking for, I guess, is a more detailed account of 2. In that case, I would ask a psychologist.. Why do people sometimes assign significance and/or special meaning to events, such as dreams? I'm sure there is an answer out there somewhere - and probably several theories as to what exactly is going on.

IMO 2. and 3. are totally independent though. Do you agree?

 

[CartesianFart]

Philosophers before this day has been idealists, while I favor such people as Daniel Dennett.

Watch out for him,he a modern day sophist,eventhough i am amused by his analogy wordplay.

It's about biology and neuroscience, and also about the evolution of thinking also in the field of cultural darwinism.

Evolutionary thinking?(eventhough,biology and neuroscience is a legitimate science,Darwinism is not)Ha! The realm of knowledge is progressing toward a postmodern anarchy,especially the human science,such as psychology and other rediculous sociologies.Everything is breaking off to different camps of ideas,pretty soon,there will be religious science of culture.

And my believe is that they are one and the same. Look above for the answers. From my post, not from heaven.

I rather be tyrannicized by my own instincts than yours.I am sure you feel the same.

We just see things little bit differently, but not that much.

No.We just have different language games.

 

[warpus]

Now that I think about it, I had a somewhat similar experience about 2 months ago.

I was hanging out with a friend, who is over at my place often. We were sitting on my only couch, chatting, when I decided that I wanted to stretch out a bit and perhaps lie down. However, I only have 1 couch, and so I did not want to kick her off the very comfortable couch that it is. She wanted to use my computer anyway, so it wasn't a problem.. but then I said: "I wish I had 2 couches.. There'd be one for you and one for me!"

So 2 hours later or so, she is going home. She exits my apartment via the back sliding door. I sit back down on the couch and continue watching whatever it was that we were watching. 30 seconds later - a knock. I check the sliding door - it's my friend. "Do you want a couch?", she says.

So I'm like, "huh?". She asks me to follow her... and sure enough, maybe 50 metres down the road, there is a couch.. in near-perfect condition! I check it out.. Yeah, it looks good.. so we carry it back to my place.

If I was a religious man I might have attributed this experience to God. I might have said: "God answered my prayer", or something of that sort. I could have attributed it to Karma.. or some sort of life-force that looks out for me. Or something like that..

Or, I could just go with reality and say that it was a bizarre coincidence.. bizarre, but a coincidence nevertheless.

 

[C~G]

So there we have it then, a working explanation of what occured.

1. Bozo has a dream.
2. Bozo remembers the dream and thinks it is significant enough to discuss it with a friend.
3. Blackout occurs, independent of the dream.

2. explains the psychological aspect and 3. explains the physical aspect of the event.

What you are looking for, I guess, is a more detailed account of 2. In that case, I would ask a psychologist.. Why do people sometimes assign significance and/or special meaning to events, such as dreams? I'm sure there is an answer out there somewhere - and probably several theories as to what exactly is going on.

IMO 2. and 3. are totally independent though. Do you agree?

Sure, as long as we admit it's our perception currently based into principles and rules that might change over time. Again this might open quite interesting discussion about the philosophy of science but I'm not really wanting to go there right now.
But from pure natural physical laws as we know them + the laws of probability the answer is of course.

The link that could exists which I already have mentioned is that perhaps there is method of predicting the future by our brains when they might possible notice something that isn't normal to our enviroment.

The thing what you forget is 0. How dreams are made and what actually caused Bozo see that dream during that particular night. I do admit it's more of psychological concept but still fascinating because I believe it could point us towards some more fundamental things about our reality if we could see the whole string of events from 0-4 as reinforcing ring. With small step you can actually end up making mathematical models of these, which I find extremely boring though.

Watch out for him,he a modern day sophist,eventhough i am amused by his analogy wordplay.

I like his wordplay but at the sametime he speaks the language I like to listen.

Evolutionary thinking?(eventhough,biology and neuroscience is a legitimate science,Darwinism is not)Ha! The realm of knowledge is progressing toward a postmodern anarchy,especially the human science,such as psychology and other rediculous sociologies.Everything is breaking off to different camps of ideas,pretty soon,there will be religious science of culture.

I agree. If you happen to notice I try to warn people of creating such thing. In fact I believe it has already happened.
Only thing left is to cope with it, learn to survive and make sure the evolution is such that it serves us not makes us it's puppets.

I rather be tyrannicized by my own instincts than yours.I am sure you feel the same

Sure. More power to us.

No.We just have different language games.

Very well, if you say so.

Or, I could just go with reality and say that it was a bizarre coincidence.. bizarre, but a coincidence nevertheless.

And I say it's psychological trap to think it was meant to happen. But then again I believe that by studying differences between "important" and "unimportant" coincidences will help us understand our behaviour and reveal the nature of our reality in the long run.

 

[warpus]

And I say it's psychological trap to think it was meant to happen. But then again I believe that by studying differences between "important" and "unimportant" coincidences will help us understand our behaviour and reveal the nature of our reality in the long run.

Define reality.

Reality, independent of the observer? Or do you believe that reality can only be defined in terms of the observer?

 

[C~G]

Define reality.

Reality, independent of the observer? Or do you believe that reality can only be defined in terms of the observer?

Main goal is to destroy the whole nasty division between body and mind, internal and external, subjective and objective

Simple as that.

Reality as whole, theory of everything and all that jazz.

Only thing we need, is actually the method to do so. And the will of course.

EDIT: But anyhow, after my usual irrational ramblings, you are free to continue discussion without me. PM me if necessary. As you were.

 

[punkbass2000]

So what am I thinking of at the time of writing this post?

You're thinking...





















that...































I'm not really going to be able to read your mind!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Bravo Punkbass

I am way behind here and currently very distracted with several NESes. But...

I am not an artist and I am not offended;
It is nice to see this thread appended.

Humans like to attach meaning & significance to events.

You seem to see this as a characteristic of our minds. I see it as a glimpse of the struggle at the very heart of creation: the search for unity that is ever present in all things.