GENIUS FORUMS

I don't think you're taking into consideration how much I'd like to win lotto. Anyway, it seems that what you're saying is that such paranormal experiences are really of much the same character as scientific knowledge.

Maybe a "deeper" A=A...

;-)

.

Dan: I don't think you're taking into consideration how much I'd like to win lotto. Anyway, it seems that what you're saying is that such paranormal experiences are really of much the same character as scientific knowledge.

No, but logical rationalization of absolutely any thing will eventually result in coherent conclusions, that is the only way, for existence is inherently logical at its core, and experiences of the “paranormal” kind can also be rationalized, provide one experiences one, AND is capable of rationalizing it free of all faith based empirical delusions.



Steven;

(And its well beyond wanting to win a lotto ticket...)

There are other better-worded sayings than this, but in my opinion…

The sprit that yearns for spirituality, sees no real worth in material wealth.

I think its time that I share my views further.

Steven: Dan, The process is acausal because by definition causality is unable to transfer information back through time. The images I receive describe events before they occur.

Nat: That would only be the case if time has only one direction. But it may have two.

Steven: Acausality <---> Reverse Causality

Absolutely not. It may not be easy to explain, but however.

It is always in one direction, ultimately forward, however, existence is but bits of information that are relative to multiple inter-dimensionally sensed thing-ness, and multiple possibilities exist at the same time, but actually “consciousness” does not have a particular “thing-ness” really, and lives off “thing-ness” so to speak, and can wander, or tap into, certain “thing-ness” related POSSIBLE or PROBABLE information. So “consciousness” is not moving forward or backwards in and of time, because “time” does not relate to it, but to the movement of “thing-ness” it does, which is always one directional.

Now since, consciousness works the most coherently strongest when closest to the machine that produced it, the closest “thing-ness” that it relates to, as in a wakeful state, it becomes more trustingly reliable to “thing-ness”, and logically concludes that it has seen the future, but that is but one of the infinite probabilities, and since it has close relations to its own “thing-ness, it can tap into the most probable possibility that may relate to its own “thing-ness”, or some other aslo, but one will experience, that ALL such “pre-cognitions” are never ever ALL realized, for what WILL happen is strongly influenced by the NOW, as a NOW can produce infinite numbers of further diversities irrelevant of its “past” bondage to a seemingly ‘thing-ness’ related fully “deterministic” causality.

Time does not exist for consciousness and can possibly wander if it reaches a certain amount of maturity, and the most lucid dreamer who is fully aware of its nature within a dream, can possibly have the most self-controlled form of “dreaming”, in which TIME is irrelevant, hence a coherent causality.

Mostly, our convictions of rational and logical conclusions are not strong enough, which BTW requires strong emotional strength, as in being utterly fearless, which is counterintuitive to reason, plus the fear of the “unknown”; hence we simply are not "strong" enough to "lift-off" coherently, and come up with words and concepts like ‘acausal’, or ‘sub-conscious’, or “PRE-cognition”, AND… "Religion" of some kind or another. The only thing “PRE” about ‘pre-cognition’ it is related to our own limitations of deducing it through the logicality related to “thing-ness”, otherwise, time does not relate to consciousness itself at all.

I hope this is not taken as just another “worldly matter” issue and deemed as utter speculation, since most have not experienced certain “reality” of REALITY, due to their own shortcomings in and of experience, for which one of the cause in not believing that RELAITY could produce “unbelievable” things, simply because it does not fall into the coherency of THING-NESS type causality.

However, although I wouldn’t like the GF Forum itself to be closed even for a day, that would show me personal intolerance of Reality actually, but it wouldn’t bother me a bit if it closed down permanently. But please, just let me know, Dan, in case it is for a few days or months, least I wonder ;)

I had some trouble following that. I don't know if it's because I'm stupid or there are some coherency problems and/or vagueness. I'll probably give it another go later, because I do feel there might be value in it.

Non-locality seems to explain this phenomenon remarkably well, as precognition would be loosely defined as "a quantum system (the subconscious) in which phenomena (the REM state) are linked independently (to waking events), without the use of any interconnecting forces acting upon them." Interesting enough. But other strange potential philosophical conundrums pop up as well. Suppose that this was evidence of another kind of causality. A type where the future is communicated back to the subconscious. A sort of cosmic block of space-time information. Or, suppose that in reality the subconscious is the realist reality, seeing as it would house the most information. What if the subconscious, living outside of time and space, actually organizes our waking existence? That it is acausal, gathering information from past, present and future, through the sub-atomic, non-locality principle.Steven Coyle

Posts: 583
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Atlanta

One night a couple of years ago I had a dream among several others that night that was a little out of the ordinary for me.


I wont tell excactly what I saw in the dream but I will say that I was at the location where something of mine was taken from me in a first person perspective of the person taking it.


Upon showing up to work the next day I was informed by a girl who was associated with a family member at the time that my "property" had been taken.

It then dawned on me that the dream the night before mirrored what happened in real life.

I told her of my dream the night before and was still a little shocked that it had happened and she was quite skeptical and the subject was dropped.


She happened to be majoring in Psycology so I can only imagine what she was thinking about what I had said to her.



I suppose it could have just been pure coincidence but it really kind of blew my mind.

.

Unidian wrote:I had some trouble following that. I don't know if it's because I'm stupid or there are some coherency problems and/or vagueness. I'll probably give it another go later, because I do feel there might be value in it.

I understand; so read “thing-ness” as the “material” world, and “consciousness” as what we have been deluded-ly labelling as “soul”, “sprit”, “ghost” and the likes, because of our overly enthusiastic indulgence in ignorance (unreasonable emotions) that arise out of FEAR of the unknown, Or, essentially a “material” world based rationalization that rejects such phenomenon unless proven. But, even philosophically speaking, one cannot really say WHAT can or not arise due to ones own limitations of not being the Totality, only that things, any THING, cannot arise without a cause, so one cannot logically claim WHAT can or cannot arise in an ultimate sense. And if ones mind is not open to possibilities, then the door is shut, it just works that way.

After all, it does not make any difference to Existence (Totality, Reality) itself, and ‘sprits” that do not mutate or evolve can go extinct just like it happens in the “material” world, but Existence (Reality, Totality) goes on. And there is no ONE COSMICALLY SENTIENT CONSCIOUSNESS at all, but individually distinct “consciousnesses” of various degrees, that simply fluctuate depending on its own complexities in and of Awareness, just like the material world does in and off “matter”.

Sapius wrote:It is always in one direction, ultimately forward, however, existence is but bits of information that are relative to multiple inter-dimensionally sensed thing-ness, and multiple possibilities exist at the same time, but actually “consciousness” does not have a particular “thing-ness” really, and lives off “thing-ness” so to speak, and can wander, or tap into, certain “thing-ness” related POSSIBLE or PROBABLE information. So “consciousness” is not moving forward or backwards in and of time, because “time” does not relate to it, but to the movement of “thing-ness” it does, which is always one directional.

Now since, consciousness works the most coherently strongest when closest to the machine that produced it, the closest “thing-ness” that it relates to, as in a wakeful state, it becomes more trustingly reliable to “thing-ness”, and logically concludes that it has seen the future, but that is but one of the infinite probabilities, and since it has close relations to its own “thing-ness, it can tap into the most probable possibility that may relate to its own “thing-ness”, or some other aslo, but one will experience, that ALL such “pre-cognitions” are never ever ALL realized, for what WILL happen is strongly influenced by the NOW, as a NOW can produce infinite numbers of further diversities irrelevant of its “past” bondage to a seemingly ‘thing-ness’ related fully “deterministic” causality.

These two paragraphs may be the least comprehensible, so I will add my wording.

"Consciousness is ultimately nonphysical but, within the physical, can tap into any of an infinite possible future realities. The most probable realities, however, are the ones easiest to "forsee." The passage of time, though, is not related to consciousness itself but the physicality of a particular attention of consciousness.

"The perception of this particular attention will describe it as having seen the future, in recognition of the probability of the forseen event, but it is only a probable future. There are many other possible futures which are more or less probable and which may or may not "happen," although they are all happening. The forseen event may or may not happen, depending on what is chosen in the present "leading up to" the present of the forseen event."

Dan Rowden wrote:I don't think you're taking into consideration how much I'd like to win lotto. .

I'm no sage but you chances of satisifaction would likely increase if you put in a ticket.

I am a bit a of mathematician though, so i advise the more tickets the better.

Ticket? Really? Crap, I imagine that's where I'm going wrong. Thanks for the tip ;)

DF;

These two paragraphs may be the least comprehensible, so I will add my wording.

Thanks, and anyone is most welcome if one gathers the essence of my expression, which I know terribly lacks eloquence due to my own shortcomings.

"Consciousness is ultimately nonphysical but, within the physical, can tap into any of an infinite possible future realities. The most probable realities, however, are the ones easiest to "forsee." The passage of time, though, is not related to consciousness itself but the physicality of a particular attention of consciousness.

"The perception of this particular attention will describe it as having seen the future, in recognition of the probability of the forseen event, but it is only a probable future. There are many other possible futures which are more or less probable and which may or may not "happen," although they are all happening. The forseen event may or may not happen, depending on what is chosen in the present "leading up to" the present of the forseen event."

Very very close, except for one thing I can notice offhand.

Consciousness is ultimately non-physical but, within the physical,

AND vice versa. For they are necessarily not only dependant, but also the creators of each other, and that there is no real "without" to that system. The FORMS (properties) of the physical AND the non-physical, change and fluctuate as per causal conditions, and both influence the NOW in their own interdependent manner, without any externality to them both, or dependency above or beyond THAT interdependency. And THAT is what I would call “Totality”, which exists in every yin/yang particle and is complete and perfect as it is, hence making Existence perfect in that sense, extending endlessly in any which direction or sense one can think of.

Otherwise, our current general status sucks! :D

Jung was big on the whole syncronicty buisness.It mostly seems like woo-woo to me-confirmation bias,Barnum effect.

Edgar Cayce is the only fellow I've come across who doesn't seem so easy to dismiss.

<shrug>

Déjà vu (from page 1 of the thread)

Other than the "similar circumstances appearing alike" scenario, this déjà vu thing is often simply a case of your key ego program underestimating the power of the brain.

Our brains are more or less in a continuous state of calculation about what may occur in the future. Déjà vu is often where the brain, sometime in the past and usually the recent past, has popped some resonant "future divining scenario" from your subconscious into your awareness because of the degree of fit. The evolutionary purpose of the brain is to calculate what is likely to occur in the future.

Déjà vu is the result of a past precognition of what may occur, and when it actually happens here in the now, we sense a feeling of knowingness about the event. We know about it because it is something that occurred to our awareness in the past, and in doing so, this process of bringing a "thought" into awareness, in bringing "many into one" thus creates an ""information form" that can is readily stored in memory.

A thought is much like DNA, it doesn't do anything much but instruct. Thoughts are the brains index system, they instruct the manner in which the rest of the memory system is activated. Symbols like "the", "red" and "balloon", are individual thoughts, individual cases of a pre-existing memory of the mental act of naming things, of making the infinite, the mother of all manys, into existent "ones". The phrase, "the red balloon" is a separate "One" it has a specific meaning, but again it is just another case of making "many into one".

We don’t just "learn" new things, we memorise all our thoughts. But just like the thought "red", if we try and recall our thoughts we cannot. All we can ever do is recreate them. By calling upon our thought indexes, we can often recreate a previous thought almost instantaneously - but of course there is no guarantee of this in relation to complex memories. Our thought based indexes are dynamic, they change in relation to what we experience. New experiences can mean existing indexes become buried by new events, and are only able to be recalled when a similar experience occurs. Whether brought to consciousness or not, the "thought behind" every individual thing we see or hear is activated as our body experiences it, and when a sufficient number of "key named things" occur as part of a new experience, the likelihood of retrieving the previously experienced and stored "déjà vu" thought, is increased.

Ataraxia wrote:Jung was big on the whole syncronicty buisness.It mostly seems like woo-woo to me-confirmation bias,Barnum effect.

Have a look into implicit memory and particulary, priming.

I saw an experiment recently where a person is escorted to an interview room via a lift. The experimenter asks them to hold their drink while they write something and they then leave the lift and go onto the room where the subject meets a bloke briefly. They are then asked to fill in a short questionnaire about this brief meeting and then asked by the experimenter whether they would give a project-management job to this person. The results were that 100% of one group filled in the questionnaire with warmer feelings towards the bloke and ended up saying they would give him the job, and 100% of the other group filled in the questionnaire with colder feelings towards the bloke and saying they wouldn't give him the job. And the difference between the two groups: One was given hot coffee to hold in the lift and the other iced coke!

Actually I saw this on an episode of Horizon a couple of weeks ago which was about unconscious processes and their role in decision making. I might as well describe some of the other experiments and musings by butchering a PM I sent to someone about it, as the last one is especially relevant:

I was watching Horizon tonight which was all about the lesser known aspects of decision making. There was a bunch of interesting stuff about the unconscious processes involved. For instance they did an experiment where a person is shown 2 pictures of superficially similar (i.e. similar hair colour) people's faces and asked to decide which is the more attractive. They're then passed the photograph they chose and are asked in more detail why they made the decision. They come up with all sorts of reasons as to why they made the right decision. Thing is, there is actually a copy of the opposite photo behind each photo shown and when the decision is made, the experimenter actually passes them the photo of the person they didn't choose. Not one single person noticed this even once! Further, as said, they all then come up with loads of reasons for the choice they made being right by looking at the photo they've been given of the reject.

They even ended it with a guy who reckons he's proved that we unconsciously see into the future. He showed subjects random sequences of pictures known to be either emotional or calming in nature while their skin is wired up for electrical conductivity (uncontrolled sweat response). Sure enough their conductivity rises when an emotional pic is diplayed and drops when a calming one is. But they noticed that people actually start reacting to the next picture up to 3 seconds before it was even shown, with an extremely high incidence of the correct reaction for the as yet unseen pic. He reckoned that showed that we are unconsciously connected to the immediate future somehow. Personally I think it's evidence of the efficacy of our instincts and implicit memory. Seems to me that unconscious processes are taking in and processing untold data from the environment and constantly anticipating the near future. And they're doing it very well - almost precognitive in their precision. I reckon this makes more sense and is consistent with the 'instinctual life' which played such a huge part in the evolutionary history of our brains and still operates behind the scenes.

Dave Toast wrote:

Ataraxia wrote:Jung was big on the whole syncronicty buisness.It mostly seems like woo-woo to me-confirmation bias,Barnum effect.

Have a look into implicit memory and particulary, priming.

Yes,it all seems very reasonable to me.

Mainly for leisure, I play a fair bit of online poker ,from time to time.It's my 'dungeons and dragons'.Quite often one finds after sitting at the table for a number of hours and watching intently the hands you can get into a zone where you start to almost 'see' what the the opponents have.It seems on the surface inexplicable, almost psychic how tuned in you become.But it's really the subconscious just registering what cards seen,the type of betting the opponents have done in the past with similar type cards,calculating the odds of what cards he might have, and so forth; all being done in the background.

You get a similar feeling when you play alot of chess games,also somewhat like what james is talking about.A sense of "i've played this game before,the next 10 moves will go exactly like this..." and they do.

Sapius wrote:

Consciousness is ultimately non-physical but, within the physical,

AND vice versa. For they are necessarily not only dependant, but also the creators of each other, and that there is no real "without" to that system. The FORMS (properties) of the physical AND the non-physical, change and fluctuate as per causal conditions, and both influence the NOW in their own interdependent manner, without any externality to them both, or dependency above or beyond THAT interdependency. And THAT is what I would call “Totality”, which exists in every yin/yang particle and is complete and perfect as it is, hence making Existence perfect in that sense, extending endlessly in any which direction or sense one can think of.

Otherwise, our current general status sucks! :D

I would say it is not the physical and non-physical that are interdependent, but perception and essence. Perception may be considered physical or non-physical, but essence is always non-physical though able to interact with the physical. Everything physical has a non-physical dimension, and this is where interaction actually occurs. All physical manifestations begin non-physically. Perception is the experience of essence, and those two go hand in hand. Without the perceptual focus, the whole would not exist, and vice versa.

This appears to follow with the BBC documentary "The Trap" and I am in the process of watching these still.

Seems like they are fairly interesting.




part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2019895635



part 2 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5732629565


part 3 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2019895635



part 4 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7063541716

And they are about what and relevant to the discussion at hand, how?

The title of the first one is "The Century of Self - 3 - There is a policeman in my head He Must be Destroyed" and the first few seconds appears to be an image of Anthony Robbins.

So yeah... I have no clue either.

Dave;

Personally I think it's evidence of the efficacy of our instincts and implicit memory. Seems to me that unconscious processes are taking in and processing untold data from the environment and constantly anticipating the near future. And they're doing it very well - almost precognitive in their precision. I reckon this makes more sense and is consistent with the 'instinctual life' which played such a huge part in the evolutionary history of our brains and still operates behind the scenes.

I very much agree. Now take this a bit deeper and imagine how would have a complex brain, or say even a precursor to that as in a bunch of primitive neuro-cells/nerves, or say even LIFE could have come about if there was absolutely no form of “implicit memory” involved at an atomic or quantum level? And even the tiniest bit of anticipation has to necessarily be involved for any kind of Natural selection to work coherently, but because of its dependency on the form or structure that it possesses, it has its own limitations dictated accordingly. So, the higher the complexity of a consciousness which is dependant on the implicit AND explicit memory of a particular thing, the further does it have the probability to anticipate or “see” into the future a bit further, or even remember the past or "see" into it.

What do you think?

DF;

I would say it is not the physical and non-physical that are interdependent, but perception and essence. Perception may be considered physical or non-physical, but essence is always non-physical though able to interact with the physical. Everything physical has a non-physical dimension, and this is where interaction actually occurs. All physical manifestations begin non-physically. Perception is the experience of essence, and those two go hand in hand. Without the perceptual focus, the whole would not exist, and vice versa.

Again, well expressed. You see, I do not really differentiate between the “physical” and “non-physical” by strictly what they mean, but at the same time they are not one and the same thing as experienced according to a thing to a thing dimensionally felt thing-ness, and the dimensionally felt thing-ness is REAL, although is a Matrix in nature, so a brick falling on my head has real consequences nonetheless.

So, I would then equate ‘essence’ to ‘consciousness’, and ‘perceptions’ as the ‘objects’ of consciousness, (since they are not one and the same thing), and not necessarily indulge in either ‘physical’ or ‘non-physical’, but for the sake of pointing to REAL consequences that either of them entails, I have to use such words to differentiate and point out that they are not one and the same thing.

BTW, I think ‘perceptions’ as in direct experiences are necessarily results of ‘physically’ felt interactions, but rationalizing perceptions is a non-physical activity, that uses memory but is not the memory itself, a.k.a, consciousness, or awareness in its primitive form. What do you think?

Sapius wrote:BTW, I think ‘perceptions’ as in direct experiences are necessarily results of ‘physically’ felt interactions, but rationalizing perceptions is a non-physical activity, that uses memory but is not the memory itself, a.k.a, consciousness, or awareness in its primitive form. What do you think?

I'd say the "rationalizing" of perception, meaning the understanding of the experience, is still within perception, but yes, it is non-physical. Perception is not limited to the physical; I'd say the physical felt perception takes its cue from the non-physical. Perception physically is a kind of condensing or screening of the non-physical into a specific, set structure based in belief.

divine focus wrote:

Sapius wrote:BTW, I think ‘perceptions’ as in direct experiences are necessarily results of ‘physically’ felt interactions, but rationalizing perceptions is a non-physical activity, that uses memory but is not the memory itself, a.k.a, consciousness, or awareness in its primitive form. What do you think?

I'd say the "rationalizing" of perception, meaning the understanding of the experience, is still within perception, but yes, it is non-physical. Perception is not limited to the physical; I'd say the physical felt perception takes its cue from the non-physical. Perception physically is a kind of condensing or screening of the non-physical into a specific, set structure based in belief.

What belief do you think a dog has? Or would you say it does not perceive?

Animals are actually creations of ours as essence, and they naturally defer to our belief systems within their perception. They are not capable of their own beliefs, as they are not capable of imagination.

divine focus wrote:Animals are actually creations of ours as essence, and they naturally defer to our belief systems within their perception. They are not capable of their own beliefs, as they are not capable of imagination.

But they do perceive a "self" and something other than that, don't they? Otherwise how could they coherently operate or interact with their environment; it goes for a newborn human baby too, who has not yet developed a belief system. Don't tell me that a baby does not perceive. Or are you saying that I perceive that a baby perceives whereas it actually does not?