Sixth sense, have you ever.....

[DSMvirus1]

This sort of thing happened to me once. 100% serious, not even kidding one day, I was just sitting on the couch watching tv, and in my head I kept seeing that this one flower vase was going to fall out of the cabinet in the kitchen when you open the door, after about 10 mins of it replaying again and again i actually went into the kitchen opened the cabinet and that flower vase fell out and I caught it..it was so weird after that I thought it was ghostly so I stayed outside my house for a few hours lol. not even kidding i swear this really happened.

[Shelby]

Chip only the first part of your U tube vid play'd , got a link to the other parts

[chiplee]

Chip only the first part of your U tube vid play'd , got a link to the other parts

 

Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W1mbZacWbY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGCp56pMUls&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[chiplee]

Just noticed this copy of that lecture is pretty bad, Shelby. Out of sync and cuts off before Dennett offers any analysis. I'll try to find another one.

[Metric-man]

Chip thank you for that,

I won't ask for an explaination as to why you agree but,

appoligize for my failure to communicate my point of view clearly.

 

I have noticed that I have the tendency to have my thoughts jump from one example to the other, without an narative of why they do or the connection between them. There is a connection I just see it and accept it without reason myself and expect every one else to also.

 

 

 

What those youtube videos are showing can be explained by a french phrase "Coup d'œil"

Which is used by the military in assesment to battlefield strategies,

and from what I have read it is considered some have the ability naturally to see things at a glance or blink of the eye.

 

 

Here are two Definitions to compare

 

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

 

2

a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

b: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

 

 

 

Definition of GENIUS

gen·ius [jeen-yuhs] Show IPA

noun, plural gen·ius·es for 2, 3, 8, gen·i·i  [jee-nee-ahy] Show IPA for 6, 7, 9.

1.

an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work in science, art, music, etc.: the genius of Mozart.

2.

a person having such capacity.

3.

a person having an extraordinarily high intelligence rating on a psychological test, as an IQ above 140.

4.

natural ability or capacity; strong inclination: a special genius for leadership.

5.

distinctive character or spirit, as of a nation, period, or language.

 

 

 

Now obviously since the two definition vary in translation,

my question is do you see what part of these definitions are similar?

[Metric-man]

... I want REAL explainations. Personally, I think you'd have as much luck convincing me my experiences are "nonsense" as I would trying to convince you that men who don't believe in God are sterile and couldn't have children.

 

My ex mother inlaw once told she believed,

I was so ignorant that for me to procreate was on pare with a criminal offence.

 

That is a similar belief held to a science of Eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

 

Also I previously already provided a link

to what you are having a hard time in explaning to chiplee as a sensible perception.

Albert Enstien , in his 1952 book Relativity

http://everythingfor...om/einstein.htm

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote

of On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason (1813): "...the representation of coexistence is impossible in Time alone; it depends, for its completion, upon the representation of Space; because, in mere Time, all things follow one another, and in mere Space all things are side by side; it is accordingly only by the combination of Time and Space that the representation of coexistence arises."

Edited December 25, 2011 by Metric-man

[chiplee]

Not sure what's similar about the definitions. Are you going for the idea that both the supernatural and genius represent extra-oridinary things?

[Shelby]

Just noticed this copy of that lecture is pretty bad, Shelby. Out of sync and cuts off before Dennett offers any analysis. I'll try to find another one.

 

 

ya i wasn't impress'd by that at all , humm

sound'd like he was talking to a 2 grand school class

certianly not up to his usuall performance

[Metric-man]

Not a play on the on the word

extra as in great or super

Both are used in definitions of the word Spirit

as in associations of the mind and things unseen

 

Inside an entity as a place or nation or in a person or people.

 

 

 

 

 

Spir•it (sprt)

n.

1.

a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.

b. Incorporeal consciousness.

2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.

3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.

4. A supernatural being, as:

a. An angel or a demon.

b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.

c. A fairy or sprite.

5.

a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.

b. The essential nature of a person or group.

6. A person as characterized by a stated quality: He is a proud spirit.

7.

a. An inclination or tendency of a specified kind: Her actions show a generous spirit.

b. A causative, activating, or essential principle: The couple's engagement was announced in a joyous spirit.

8. spirits A mood or an emotional state: The guests were in high spirits. His sour spirits put a damper on the gathering.

9. A particular mood or an emotional state characterized by vigor and animation: sang with spirit.

10. Strong loyalty or dedication: team spirit.

11. The predominant mood of an occasion or a period: "The spirit of 1776 is not dead" (Thomas Jefferson).

12. The actual though unstated sense or significance of something: the spirit of the law.

13. An alcohol solution of an essential or volatile substance. Often used in the plural with a singular verb.

14. spirits An alcoholic beverage, especially distilled liquor.

 

 

And in a way science can not define what is not tangible

only the results of actions.

 

They can only be explained around what is the result of or maybe a cause, but only theorized on the actual subject.

 

When you have a subject that is unseen and changeable, and then of course scientist have to doubt its existence.

but if you ask what is the nature of genius or an explanation of the definition of it is sort of like asking which came first, (the chicken or the egg)?

only you’re asking the chicken (scientist).

[chiplee]

When you have a subject that is unseen and changeable, and then of course scientist have to doubt its existence.

but if you ask what is the nature of genius or an explanation of the definition of it is sort of like asking which came first, (the chicken or the egg)?

only you're asking the chicken (scientist).

 

 

Just because language exists for describing things that are out of the ordinary, that doesn't call into question the sincerity or honesty of science. It's not that scientists have to doubt existence of the "unseen", it's that they have nothing to say about existence of the unseen. You can't make predictions about things that can't be observed. As it turns out, things that don't exist happen to look remarkably similar to things that can't be observed, so the language can get a bit muddy when these kinds of things are discussed. You can't observe the intellect, but it exists. You can't observe the wind, except when it moves the leaves. This kind of double talk can get a person pretty wrapped around the axle. But it's really quite simple, that which cannot be observed "or tested for" is effectively non-existent to science. This doesn't mean just "physically observed". We can confirm the existence of an intellect, and we can measure the power of one intellect over another. We can damage consciousness by physically damaging the brain, so we know where consciousness resides. This is very different from the ethereal "unseen" of which you speak. When science refuses to address the supernatural, it doesn't mean that science doesn't believe in it. It just means that science has nothing to say about it. It can't give it any treatment whatsoever. The pseudoscientists who attempt to set up experiments to confirm the existence of the supernatural simply never find anything that would elicit universal belief.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6iHe0ra_UM

Edited December 26, 2011 by chiplee

[chiplee]

 

 

ya i wasn't impress'd by that at all , humm

sound'd like he was talking to a 2 grand school class

certianly not up to his usuall performance

 

 

Yeah, I think I was looking for this one. Same lecture but he's expanded it and seems to have better examples and analysis.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ol4sHasA8

[chiplee]

 

If a tree falls in the forrest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

 

Oh and the actual answer to this is, no. Sound waves themselves are silent until they strike a device that is capable of listening, like an ear or a microphone. If the scenario is that there is NO ONE and NOTHING there to hear the tree fall, then there is no sound at all. Sound waves will bounce around the barren forest, striking trunks and leaves and rocks and the ground, but they will eventually dissipate, silently, having never touched an ear or a microphone of any kind.

[SubZero]

 

 

Just because language exists for describing things that are out of the ordinary, that doesn't call into question the sincerity or honesty of science. It's not that scientists have to doubt existence of the "unseen", it's that they have nothing to say about existence of the unseen. You can't make predictions about things that can't be observed. As it turns out, things that don't exist happen to look remarkably similar to things that can't be observed, so the language can get a bit muddy when these kinds of things are discussed. You can't observe the intellect, but it exists. You can't observe the wind, except when it moves the leaves. This kind of double talk can get a person pretty wrapped around the axle. But it's really quite simple, that which cannot be observed "or tested for" is effectively non-existent to science. This doesn't mean just "physically observed". We can confirm the existence of an intellect, and we can measure the power of one intellect over another. We can damage consciousness by physically damaging the brain, so we know where consciousness resides. This is very different from the ethereal "unseen" of which you speak. When science refuses to address the supernatural, it doesn't mean that science doesn't believe in it. It just means that science has nothing to say about it. It can't give it any treatment whatsoever. The pseudoscientists who attempt to set up experiments to confirm the existence of the supernatural simply never find anything that would elicit universal belief.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6iHe0ra_UM

 

 

On reading what you wrote here and from watching the video you posted I remembered hearing a couple years ago about people having some knowledge and even starting new habits of the person they received an organ implant from without ever knowing their name and much less anything about the life of the donor.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToztzYQ2kpM

[Metric-man]

 

Oh and the actual answer to this is, no. Sound waves themselves are silent until they strike a device that is capable of listening, like an ear or a microphone. If the scenario is that there is NO ONE and NOTHING there to hear the tree fall, then there is no sound at all. Sound waves will bounce around the barren forest, striking trunks and leaves and rocks and the ground, but they will eventually dissipate, silently, having never touched an ear or a microphone of any kind.

Again I apologize for the link I posted below my statement for that question, here is another

http://everythingfor.../st_volume.html

According to Einstein it is still posible after the fact through spacetime as a mathimatical concept,

Or..

 

On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason by Arthur Schopenhauer

As it is summarized here by E. F. J. Payne

Our knowing consciousness…is divisible solely into subject and object.

To be object for the subject and to be our representation or mental picture are one and the same.

All our representations are objects for the subject, and all objects of the subject are our representations.

These stand to one another in a regulated connection which in form is determinable a priori,

and by virtue of this connection nothing existing by itself and independent, nothing single and detached, can become an object for us. …

The first aspect of this principle is that of becoming, where it appears as the law of causality and is applicable only to changes.

 

Thus if the cause is given, the effect must of necessity follow.

The second aspect deals with concepts or abstract representations,

which are themselves drawn from representations of intuitive perception,

and here the principle of sufficient reason states that,

if certain premises are given, the conclusion must follow.

 

The third aspect of the principle is concerned with being in space and time, and shows that the existence of one relation inevitably implies the other, thus that the equality of the angles of a triangle necessarily implies the equality of its sides and vice versa.

Finally, the fourth aspect deals with actions, and the principle appears as the law of motivation, which states that a definite course of action inevitably ensues on a given character and motive.

 

Accodingly you could say the sound was the action of the tree falling

or the tree falling was the action of the sound of the tree falling.

But then ultimately the motivation for the tree falling or for the sound of the tree falling

needs to be examinded closer.

 

But also by this same logic...

 

If the tree fell and there was no sound then it is still waiting to be heard.

 

And I'll insert here that we can only perceive through our own senses even if those senses are aided by mechanical or electronic sources it is still the human body that must decide what we perceive.

 

I saw a tape of a Spanish guitarist Andres Segovia he lived to be in his 90's

and on this program they showed him in one of his lasts concerts and he could barely walk or speak but he picked up his guitar and he could play as if he was eternally linked to his instrument I can't find the complete program but this is the oldest footage I could find as of this date, but if you know the program or the footage I mentioned please share it with me because it is an amazing representation of what is retained in the human mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx9fPeaD_Ns&feature=related

[Shelby]

 

Oh and the actual answer to this is, no. Sound waves themselves are silent until they strike a device that is capable of listening, like an ear or a microphone. If the scenario is that there is NO ONE and NOTHING there to hear the tree fall, then there is no sound at all. Sound waves will bounce around the barren forest, striking trunks and leaves and rocks and the ground, but they will eventually dissipate, silently, having never touched an ear or a microphone of any kind.

 

 

this is just short of silly, thinking that sound is there simply for human hears to hear ,, if that were the case why have so many animals on the earth given ears to hear with / even a great many incects have a means of hearing , and fish well they'd make you envious of their ability to hear sound , maybe not in the same sence as creatures with ears but to feel sound waves none the less , so by that senerio a tree falling in the forest would certianly make noise there being a human arround to hear it has no effect on the actual event

[chiplee]

 

 

this is just short of silly, thinking that sound is there simply for human hears to hear ,, if that were the case why have so many animals on the earth given ears to hear with / even a great many incects have a means of hearing , and fish well they'd make you envious of their ability to hear sound , maybe not in the same sence as creatures with ears but to feel sound waves none the less , so by that senerio a tree falling in the forest would certianly make noise there being a human arround to hear it has no effect on the actual event

 

What I wrote didn't even remotely suggest that sound was there simply for humans to hear. I said ANY listening device. If there was anything in the area with an ear, or even a digital recording device, the tree would make a sound when it fell. The point of the thought experiment is that there is "NOTHING" there to hear the tree. If you follow the rules of the thought experiment and allow that there is NOTHING capable of hearing when the tree falls, then the tree DOES NOT MAKE A SOUND, period. Sound waves are silent until they impact a listening device. If you were there, or if a squirrel was there, or if a dolphin was there, it would make a sound.

Edited December 26, 2011 by chiplee

[Shelby]

just one more thing that is unproveable

[chiplee]

just one more thing that is unproveable

 

You're right, but that's exactly the point of the thought experiment. Much like the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle tells us about light, the presence of an observer has an impact on reality. This old question about trees falling and people listening was never meant to be such a point of debate. It was meant to articulate a simple point, that without listeners, there is no sound. Even light behaves differently depending on whether or not someone (or something) is watching. Pointing out that there would be animals there to hear it completely misses the point, in fact it means you refuse to play by the rules of the experiment, probably because it doesn't sit well with you. We all like to think we are experts on consciousness because we're conscious every waking minute of every day. Philosophers design questions that help people think about aspects of consciousness they might not have thought of on their own, but people don't like it.

[Shelby]

 

You're right, but that's exactly the point of the thought experiment. Much like the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle tells us about light, the presence of an observer has an impact on reality. This old question about trees falling and people listening was never meant to be such a point of debate. It was meant to articulate a simple point, that without listeners, there is no sound. Even light behaves differently depending on whether or not someone (or something) is watching. Pointing out that there would be animals there to hear it completely misses the point, in fact it means you refuse to play by the rules of the experiment, probably because it doesn't sit well with you. We all like to think we are experts on consciousness because we're conscious every waking minute of every day. Philosophers design questions that help people think about aspects of consciousness they might not have thought of on their own, but people don't like it.

 

i wasn't thinking about any experiment only FACTS , and the fact is humans do not change any basic facts of science , be it cause or effect the only thing we can effect is our perception of reality not reality it's self

[chiplee]

 

i wasn't thinking about any experiment only FACTS , and the fact is humans do not change any basic facts of science , be it cause or effect the only thing we can effect is our perception of reality not reality it's self

 

The "fact" is that you don't understand this thought experiment yet. The point you're making is true, but unrelated. Keep working on it, lol. The observer does change reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Edited December 26, 2011 by chiplee

[Shelby]

 

The "fact" is that you don't understand this thought experiment yet. The point you're making is true, but unrelated. Keep working on it, lol. The observer does change reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

 

 

oh i follow'd his talk and his examples , they go right along with my own poor thought out reply about what people see or don't see on a daily basis , one thing i did not understand is why he said people had such a long responce time to see the differances in the photo's , i'd have said so many seconds NOT minutes , unless my estimation of the norm for the average person is way off

[chiplee]

 

 

oh i follow'd his talk and his examples , they go right along with my own poor thought out reply about what people see or don't see on a daily basis , one thing i did not understand is why he said people had such a long responce time to see the differances in the photo's , i'd have said so many seconds NOT minutes , unless my estimation of the norm for the average person is way off

 

I wasn't really thinking about Dennett while we discussed this, but his points do relate. The point is that there are actual changes to reality that are caused by the act of observing reality, but there are infinitely more changes to reality that are imagined (or misinterpreted) by the observer. Dennett is discussing the limits of our ability to accurately perceive. The double slit experiment and the tree falling in the woods thought experiment both deal with ACTUAL differences that are caused by the act of observing. The tree fall thought experiment is designed to get you to recognize that the moment of hearing is when sound becomes real for all intents and purposes, and that without a hearer, there is no noise. It puts the observer in the loop to highlight the importance of considering the stimulant and the stimulated as part of an integral feedback pair where neither is capable of anything without the other.

Edited December 26, 2011 by chiplee

[Burton]

Yeah, I think I was looking for this one. Same lecture but he's expanded it and seems to have better examples and analysis. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48ol4sHasA8

 

 

That was pretty interesting. Some of it was some new interesting things to think about, but it doesn't get me too much closer to an explaination that truly answers things to me.

 

I grew up in a very religious family, so I was raised believing that because of the Holy Ghost, Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife, all my "supernatural" experinces were proof enough to me that there was a God. I think that may be the case for many people who have experiences like I have. As I got older and researched life myself to try and figure out the explanations that made the most sense to me, it was not so easy to PROVE to myself that my experiences were based on spirituality/religion, or at least my traditional view of it. To this day, because of my experiences and research, it's hard for me to think there's not something else out there, bigger than science can even contemplate, let alone prove. It may not be God, or at least the Christian view of God. If there is something like that, I'm not sure any particular type of religion could figure it out. At the same time, there's nothing out there that can prove to me that my experiences are absolutely tied to something spiritual. I do have to admit, even tho I am undecided to a certain extent, I lean towards thinking that there is something spiritual out there. Wether it exists or not, it's easy to see how people of any religion could be compelled to want to think that there is something special waiting for them after they die.

 

Now, I AM NOT bringing this up to start a big religious topic, because that's not the main question here. We want to know who has had a "6th sense" of some sort, not really why they have it. However, if I am going to try and explain my experiences andperceptions of them, I have to kinda explain my thought processes of how I've tried to rationalize it and figure things out.

 

So what could my experiences be from? Well, it could be something spiritual. It could be my perception or my conciousness seeing something that either isn't there, or is there, just misinterpreted. It may even be elecromagnetic fields, surges and pulses that are everywhere in the universe, or something else that science nor spirituality will ever be able to figure out 100%. Hell, there may be some alternate universe to ours that just happens to be exactly the same as ours except that one is running a few seconds ahead of our own, and somehow I'm able to tap into that from time to time.

 

I'm sure some of my experiences that I listed could be explained (but not proven) by my mind or my perception playing tricks on me. My experience with the ex girlfriend could have easily been put together just in my head, even if I were completely awake.

 

Seeing my grandfather's image in the closet door could also be explained by my mind, until the point of how did I know to see the image not only at the time of his death, but before I ever could have gotten the info that he had died? That's just too much of a coincidence.

 

Then what about the argument at the store at the middle of the night? There were other people witnessing the same thing I was, so I know it happened. The theory that my mind could percieve that I was seeing it again, even tho I was seeing it for the first is an interesting one but, if that were the case, when I was narrating what the people were saying before they said it, I would actually have been repeating what they said a split second after they said it. In reality, someone was there to hear me say it before they did.

 

The knowing things before they happen is the hardest one for me to wrap my head around. There's a few different explainations that could work in their own way. Some are easier for me to discredit than others. However, there's always going to be some compelling ideas, that may come close to proving it one way or another, but none of those can 100% absolutely prove anything to me....as of now. Maybe the absolute answer is out there and I haven't found it yet, or maybe there is no absolute answer now, or ever.

 

 

I may not be able to explain why or how I have had my experiences, all I can say with absolute certainty is that I have had these experiences and they are not "nonsense". They may seem that way to you or others, but they have been a big part of my life, and not exactly something I have enjoyed having. They have cost me much stress, time and research trying deal with them or try to prove why or how they happen. After all that it's infuriating to me to have someone try and tell me that all my stress and research was over "nonsense" or something that didn't even exist. Especially, since I don't think ANY human can have a full understanding of life, consciousness, science, or spirituality with 100% absolute certainty, myself included. All any of us can do is live our lives, and each of us decide what perception works best for us, wether that be based on teachings, personal research, or life expriences. Sure there are some aspects of life that are easy to prove, like if you put water in freezing temps, it will turn to ice. There may be people out there with the perception that water won't turn to ice in freezing temps, but they can easily be proven wrong. Others are a little tricky, like the sky is blue on cloudless days. Most of the time that is true, but what about people who are color blind or don't see colors properly? Their absolute perception is that the sky is not blue, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Of course, medical science can prove why that person's perception is different than the norm. What we got here is something even trickier. There's really no way to prove it with certainty either way, and all we can do is make our best informed decisions that work best for our own individual perceptions which will be based on our own personal research and experiences. Nobody can be proven right, or wrong. Obvously, the people who are smarter or research their perceptions extensively should have a more acurate knowledge than the average guy, but that still doesn't really allow for any of those people to be 100% right.

 

 

It makes me wonder.... If people would realize they don't know it all and work together rather than spend their time debating who's right, we'd probably be MUCH closer to knowing the 100% absolute truth about a lot more aspects of life.

Edited December 26, 2011 by Burton

[chiplee]

 

 

That was pretty interesting. Some of it was some new interesting things to think about, but it doesn't get me too much closer to an explaination that truly answers things to me.

 

I grew up in a very religious family, so I was raised believing that because of the Holy Ghost, Heaven, Hell, and the afterlife, all my "supernatural" experinces were proof enough to me that there was a God. I think that may be the case for many people who have experiences like I have. As I got older and researched life myself to try and figure out the explanations that made the most sense to me, it was not so easy to PROVE to myself that my experiences were based on spirituality/religion, or at least my traditional view of it. To this day, because of my experiences and research, it's hard for me to think there's not something else out there, bigger than science can even contemplate, let alone prove. It may not be God, or at least the Christian view of God. If there is something like that, I'm not sure any particular type of religion could figure it out.

I know this is unrelated to your main point, but I think it's important to point out that to my knowledge, there aren't any religions that are trying to "figure anything out". At least in the big three, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, each professes to have the perfect revealed word of the creator of the universe as its doctrine. No effort to "figure things out" beyond that is called for or acceptable really. Any tolerance of or appreciation for science seen in religions tends to be done for the hope of discovering more about God.

 

At the same time, there's nothing out there that can prove to me that my experiences are absolutely tied to something spiritual. I do have to admit, even tho I am undecided to a certain extent, I lean towards thinking that there is something spiritual out there. Wether it exists or not, it's easy to see how people of any religion could be compelled to want to think that there is something special waiting for them after they die.

 

Oh I completely agree. There are all sorts of things that drive us to really want this to be true.

 

Now, I AM NOT bringing this up to start a big religious topic, because that's not the main question here. We want to know who has had a "6th sense" of some sort, not really why they have it. However, if I am going to try and explain my experiences andperceptions of them, I have to kinda explain my thought processes of how I've tried to rationalize it and figure things out.

 

So what could my experiences be from? Well, it could be something spiritual. It could be my perception or my conciousness seeing something that either isn't there, or is there, just misinterpreted. It may even be elecromagnetic fields, surges and pulses that are everywhere in the universe, or something else that science nor spirituality will ever be able to figure out 100%. Hell, there may be some alternate universe to ours that just happens to be exactly the same as ours except that one is running a few seconds ahead of our own, and somehow I'm able to tap into that from time to time.

 

I'm sure some of my experiences that I listed could be explained (but not proven) by my mind or my perception playing tricks on me. My experience with the ex girlfriend could have easily been put together just in my head, even if I were completely awake.

 

It might help to start from the premise that nothing is ever proven. As I've tried countless times to explain, not to you but in general, we have two tools available to us for ranking our various conjectures. Those tools are evidence and reason. Notice, first, that neither of the tools is called "feeling" or "faith". Outside of math and formal logic, nothing is ever proved. Things only ever become extremely likely to be true, and we live our lives as if they are proved.

 

With that premise in mind, I think you might be better prepared to search for information that will help you "rank the various conjectures" that you've outlined.

 

1. You have a 6th sense.

2. You have misinterpreted your senses from time to time.

3. Some electromagnetic field type of anomaly is happening.

4. It is something neither science nor spirituality will ever figure out.

5. You can tap into a parallel universe from time to time and see a small amount of time into the future by doing so.

 

These are listed in no particular order, and I applaud you for allowing the hypothesis that I believe to be correct, that you have misinterpreted your senses. What I suspect you would find if you made a concerted effort to rank these various conjectures, is that you would have to reject many reasonable explanations for each of the supernatural conjectures in order to accept any of them. To accept the non-supernatural possibility, I predict that you would only need to accept reasonable explanations, vice rejecting them, but that's a pure guess. It would be an interesting, and long, process.

 

Seeing my grandfather's image in the closet door could also be explained by my mind, until the point of how did I know to see the image not only at the time of his death, but before I ever could have gotten the info that he had died? That's just too much of a coincidence.

 

Is it though? Do old people not die? I certainly hope he hadn't been ill or anything like that that would have caused you to consider that he may die if you're rejecting this as simply "too much of a coincidence."

 

Then what about the argument at the store at the middle of the night? There were other people witnessing the same thing I was, so I know it happened. The theory that my mind could percieve that I was seeing it again, even tho I was seeing it for the first is an interesting one but, if that were the case, when I was narrating what the people were saying before they said it, I would actually have been repeating what they said a split second after they said it. In reality, someone was there to hear me say it before they did.

 

Sure, I'm not denying that it's odd, but do arguments not tend to go a certain way most times? Was it a verbatim prediction of the exact words they spoke just seconds before they spoke them, or was it remarkably similar. No need to answer here, just think it over yourself. Is there any chance your recollection of the event has been embellished slightly as you've recounted the story over the years at parties or wherever? Do you use any mind altering substances that could impact your recollection? None of these are show stoppers or proof, but they might be useful in ranking one conjecture over the other.

 

The knowing things before they happen is the hardest one for me to wrap my head around. There's a few different explainations that could work in their own way. Some are easier for me to discredit than others. However, there's always going to be some compelling ideas, that may come close to proving it one way or another, but none of those can 100% absolutely prove anything to me....as of now. Maybe the absolute answer is out there and I haven't found it yet, or maybe there is no absolute answer now, or ever.

 

 

I may not be able to explain why or how I have had my experiences, all I can say with absolute certainty is that I have had these experiences and they are not "nonsense". They may seem that way to you or others, but they have been a big part of my life, and not exactly something I have enjoyed having. They have cost me much stress, time and research trying deal with them or try to prove why or how they happen. After all that it's infuriating to me to have someone try and tell me that all my stress and research was over "nonsense" or something that didn't even exist. Especially, since I don't think ANY human can have a full understanding of life, consciousness, science, or spirituality with 100% absolute certainty, myself included. All any of us can do is live our lives, and each of us decide what perception works best for us, wether that be based on teachings, personal research, or life expriences. Sure there are some aspects of life that are easy to prove, like if you put water in freezing temps, it will turn to ice. There may be people out there with the perception that water won't turn to ice in freezing temps, but they can easily be proven wrong. Others are a little tricky, like the sky is blue on cloudless days. Most of the time that is true, but what about people who are color blind or don't see colors properly? Their absolute perception is that the sky is not blue, and nobody can tell them otherwise. Of course, medical science can prove why that person's perception is different than the norm. What we got here is something even trickier. There's really no way to prove it with certainty either way, and all we can do is make our best informed decisions that work best for our own individual perceptions which will be based on our own personal research and experiences. Nobody can be proven right, or wrong. Obvously, the people who are smarter or research their perceptions extensively should have a more acurate knowledge than the average guy, but that still doesn't really allow for any of those people to be 100% right.

 

 

It makes me wonder.... If people would realize they don't know it all and work together rather than spend their time debating who's right, we'd probably be MUCH closer to knowing the 100% absolute truth about a lot more aspects of life.

 

All I care about is that you're honest enough to say you can't be certain any of the experiences were of the supernatural type. I'll listen to stories about experiences that "seemed" crazy all day long, but statements of fact about perception are on shaky ground.

Edited December 26, 2011 by chiplee

[Edde]

I recently (mid Dec) was with a group of people some of whom I know but three I did not. Upon learning my last name each of these three people approached me at different times individually and asked how I was related to another person with same last name. One after another, I explained to each that the person they knew was a 2nd cousin of mine. 3 different random people knew 3 different 2nd cousins of mine at some point in their lives.

 

With all my psychic powers how could I have not been ready? :mad:

 

Ok, just funning around... but totally true story.