Bozo Erectus
Master Baker
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Messages
- 22,389
Im still being asked for proofwarpus said: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 proofwarpus said: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.
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.Eiba said: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.
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.Bozo Erectus said:Do you believe that enough is known about 'everything', to categorically state that all apparent cases of accurate precognition are nothing but coindidence?
This is your Western upbringing and education speaking.Veritass said: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.
That however was Veritass speakingOn 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.
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.C~G said: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.
Bozo Erectus said:Im still being asked for proofSince 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 said: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 said: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.
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.Bozo Erectus said: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.
Maybe they have?CartesianFart said: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.
And I absolutely agree with you. Now, maybe someone gets funding for such thing.warpus said:If you want to say there is something "weird" going on, do your research, study the phenomenon, then come back with something more concrete.
C~G said: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.
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.C~G said:understand some principles that are links between our internal and external reality we might better understand rules of the metaphysical world.
And many philosophers have done so in years past.It is a dead-end endeavor,is my stance.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Same here.I don't know does anyone actually understand my gibberish about this but at least I tried.
That is the whole point, for me the starting point is psychology.warpus said:Sounds to me like this is a psychological question, not a physical one..
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.warpus said: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.
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.CartesianFart said: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.
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.CartesianFart said: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.
And my believe is that they are one and the same. Look above for the answers. From my post, not from heaven.CartesianFart said: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.
You do make lot of sense.CartesianFart said:Same here
C~G said: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.
Watch out for him,he a modern day sophist,eventhough i am amused by his analogy wordplay.C~G said:Philosophers before this day has been idealists, while I favor such people as Daniel Dennett.
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.It's about biology and neuroscience, and also about the evolution of thinking also in the field of cultural darwinism.
I rather be tyrannicized by my own instincts than yours.I am sure you feel the same.And my believe is that they are one and the same. Look above for the answers. From my post, not from heaven.
No.We just have different language games.We just see things little bit differently, but not that much.
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.warpus said: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?
I like his wordplay but at the sametime he speaks the language I like to listen.CartesianFart said:Watch out for him,he a modern day sophist,eventhough i am amused by his analogy wordplay.
I agree. If you happen to notice I try to warn people of creating such thing. In fact I believe it has already happened.CartesianFart said: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.
Sure. More power to us.CartesianFart said:I rather be tyrannicized by my own instincts than yours.I am sure you feel the same
Very well, if you say so.CartesianFart said:No.We just have different language games.
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 said:Or, I could just go with reality and say that it was a bizarre coincidence.. bizarre, but a coincidence nevertheless.
C~G said: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 said:Define reality.
Reality, independent of the observer? Or do you believe that reality can only be defined in terms of the observer?
Simple as that.C~G said:Main goal is to destroy the whole nasty division between body and mind, internal and external, subjective and objective
chrisrossi said:So what am I thinking of at the time of writing this post?
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.warpus & one other said:Humans like to attach meaning & significance to events.