Alex
Administrator
I'm reminded of Raymond Moody's point about it being "pre-scientific."For most regular people (not psychic) "long term precognition" seems to be highly fragmentary...
I'm reminded of Raymond Moody's point about it being "pre-scientific."For most regular people (not psychic) "long term precognition" seems to be highly fragmentary...
I gotta take exception to that conclusion... I mean, I guess it all depend on what you consider evidence and what sources you consider credible. We may all love NASA, but they are proven disinformation agents (i.e. liars). Moreover, arguing against UFO moon bases seems a little like arguing hypoxia as a cause for NDEs in that the worldview of the arguer doesn't really allow for the possibility and are therefore left patching together scoffing to hold up beliefs.
I kinda feel like you're trying to stretch a really good point (i.e. there's some relationship between precognition and these phenomena) too far.
as long as we can all agree on UFOs being "real" and alien contact being "real" and that the US gov seems to invest a tremendous amount of effort in misdirecting/misinforming... well, if we can agree on all that, then we can discuss moon bases.I am actually open minded about UFOs, despite never seeing one personally, but am not sold on the logic of a permanent base being in the moon...
agreed. I'd go one step further... "may offer some clues toward better understanding some aspects of some subsets..."But, my main point was actually that precognition can only be used to explain some subsets of these phenomena.
I'm reminded of Raymond Moody's point about it being "pre-scientific."
as long as we can all agree on UFOs being "real" and alien contact being "real" and that the US gov seems to invest a tremendous amount of effort in misdirecting/misinforming... well, if we can agree on all that, then we can discuss moon bases.
you're one step ahead :) already scheduled :)
Thank you for these comments Hurmanetar, I appreciate your thoughts and wish I had more time to address them in detail but unfortunately I do not have the time. I'll try to put this in a nutshell - to me what is important is the intention of the "speaker" (the source of the synchronicity - assuming that it has an intention and is not some kind of mechanical "reflex" in mind-matter). Not surprisingly, you mention the trickster, ambiguity in reality, deception etc. Now if I was something or someone behind reality and REALLY wanted to convey a message to you I wouldn't play games, I wouldn't use a language you don't understand (to go back to my example, German instead of English), I would not leave you wondering whether you are going crazy, whether it was all "just a coincidence", whether you read too much into things. The ambiguity around synchronicities is actually pretty infuriating for me :). I'm here precisely because I would like to go to the bottom of this (in the sense that at least I want to reach the point where I have a theory *I* can more or less believe in - I'm not here to convince others, especially now that I'm still groping in the dark...) You said that you don't mind ambiguity, and that's OK: you are obviously one of those people who enjoy the fact that we live in a mysterious universe and find it exciting and fun. I don't. To use a metaphor, again, I feel like I'm a non-smoker in a restaurant (this consensus reality) where the owner (God/the Universe/call it what you will) is a "smoker at heart" :) (loves mystery, ambiguity and playing games) so smokers (people like you, who like mystery, creativity and what not) are perfectly happy inhaling and being surrounded by smoke and don't mind creating some more, while I am forced to inhale this smoke whether I like it or not. OK, so I could leave - well, I will, one day, and that's why the idea of death doesn't bother me that much, but in the meantime I am protesting and hoping that the owner becomes aware of the unfairness of this and maybe creates a small smoke-free area (for myself and those who would like to get to the truth and stop being exposed to ambiguity, uncalled for humour and "trickery"). And even if s/he doesn't care, well at least I will have spoken my mind and not suffered the smoke quietly, thank you very much! :)
More seriously: part of my job involves communication. But real communication, in which my purpose is making sure I am understood, and that means being sincere, straightforward, aware of people's needs and any comprehension difficulties they might have. I am communicating because I CARE. My intention is for people to UNDERSTAND me. So I go out of my way to make my message clear and unambiguous. I don't see this happening with synchronicities, so I don't understand a) how a lot people can feel that they know exactly what each of them is about 2) how most people automatically assume that synchs are "encouraging, positive signs" (from God etc) 3) what purpose synchs serve exactly, if not that of "the medium is the message", i.e.: "look at this, if something so weird can happen, it means that the universe does not function as you thought", so live your life accordingly. I got this message, believe me, but I have been experiencing synchronicities (huge ones and minor, trivial ones) on a daily basis for the past 3 years, not just when travelling - so I have to I wonder why.
Just one final question for today: you mentioned some interesting synchronicities (experienced by you and other people). What do you make of the fact that some of these synchs could somehow appear to be related to ethics/religion/"karma" (as in your own example, with the flat tires etc) while other appear to be utterly trivial (say, the German Finance minister making headlines in the UK by using the word "poison" just a couple of hours after I used that word in an example related to the German language in this Forum)? How do you reconcile a (supposedly) ethical God and the trickster (whose pranks can show pretty bad taste, a bit like making fun of mentally handicapped people - that's what we are, since he is in a position of power as compared to us living in ignorance)?
I'll try to put this in a nutshell - to me what is important is the intention of the "speaker" (the source of the synchronicity - assuming that it has an intention and is not some kind of mechanical "reflex" in mind-matter).
Not surprisingly, you mention the trickster, ambiguity in reality, deception etc. Now if I was something or someone behind reality and REALLY wanted to convey a message to you I wouldn't play games, I wouldn't use a language you don't understand (to go back to my example, German instead of English), I would not leave you wondering whether you are going crazy, whether it was all "just a coincidence", whether you read too much into things.
The ambiguity around synchronicities is actually pretty infuriating for me :). I'm here precisely because I would like to go to the bottom of this (in the sense that at least I want to reach the point where I have a theory *I* can more or less believe in - I'm not here to convince others, especially now that I'm still groping in the dark...) You said that you don't mind ambiguity, and that's OK: you are obviously one of those people who enjoy the fact that we live in a mysterious universe and find it exciting and fun. I don't. To use a metaphor, again, I feel like I'm a non-smoker in a restaurant (this consensus reality) where the owner (God/the Universe/call it what you will) is a "smoker at heart" :) (loves mystery, ambiguity and playing games) so smokers (people like you, who like mystery, creativity and what not) are perfectly happy inhaling and being surrounded by smoke and don't mind creating some more, while I am forced to inhale this smoke whether I like it or not. OK, so I could leave - well, I will, one day, and that's why the idea of death doesn't bother me that much, but in the meantime I am protesting and hoping that the owner becomes aware of the unfairness of this and maybe creates a small smoke-free area (for myself and those who would like to get to the truth and stop being exposed to ambiguity, uncalled for humour and "trickery"). And even if s/he doesn't care, well at least I will have spoken my mind and not suffered the smoke quietly, thank you very much! :)
More seriously: part of my job involves communication. But real communication, in which my purpose is making sure I am understood, and that means being sincere, straightforward, aware of people's needs and any comprehension difficulties they might have. I am communicating because I CARE. My intention is for people to UNDERSTAND me. So I go out of my way to make my message clear and unambiguous.
I don't see this happening with synchronicities, so I don't understand a) how a lot people can feel that they know exactly what each of them is about 2) how most people automatically assume that synchs are "encouraging, positive signs" (from God etc) 3) what purpose synchs serve exactly, if not that of "the medium is the message", i.e.: "look at this, if something so weird can happen, it means that the universe does not function as you thought", so live your life accordingly. I got this message, believe me, but I have been experiencing synchronicities (huge ones and minor, trivial ones) on a daily basis for the past 3 years, not just when travelling - so I have to wonder why.
Just one final question for today: you mentioned some interesting synchronicities (experienced by you and other people). What do you make of the fact that some of these synchs could somehow appear to be related to ethics/religion/"karma" (as in your own example, with the flat tires etc) while other appear to be utterly trivial (say, the German Finance minister making headlines in the UK by using the word "poison" just a couple of hours after I used that word in an example related to the German language in this Forum)? How do you reconcile a (supposedly) ethical God and the trickster (whose pranks can show pretty bad taste, a bit like making fun of mentally handicapped people - that's what we are, since he is in a position of power as compared to us living in ignorance)?
It doesn't matter what you think of NASA or the possibility of moon bases, UFOs, etc. What makes you conclude that, because Ingo Swann says he remote viewed moon bases, he was accurate (let alone truthful), or that his interpretation of what he might have seen was correct? Neither you nor I have any proof of whether there really are alien bases on the moon, so it's an empirical question but one we just aren't in a position to answer. But being willing to trust any psychic, even one with a good track record, just on their word--"I saw X therefore X must exist" is not being rigorous. Ingo Swann was wrong on lots of his remote viewing sessions, as are all remote viewers. Deliberate exercise of psi (however we explain it) is subject to all kinds of vagaries and errors. (It's precisely those vagaries and characteristic errors that have led me to my particular argument about precognition, but that's a separate issue.)I gotta take exception to that conclusion... I mean, I guess it all depend on what you consider evidence and what sources you consider credible. We may all love NASA, but they are proven disinformation agents (i.e. liars). Moreover, arguing against UFO moon bases seems a little like arguing hypoxia as a cause for NDEs in that the worldview of the arguer doesn't really allow for the possibility and are therefore left patching together scoffing to hold up beliefs.
I kinda feel like you're trying to stretch a really good point (i.e. there's some relationship between precognition and these phenomena) too far.
I take the view that there are possibly many beings with many intentions at work including ourselves and we all have certain limitations (because no limits creates a meaningless story). We have purposefully gotten lost in a story or a maze for the purpose of amazement and trying to figure out how to get back out. That's my view at least.
I strongly agree that " real-world meaning" is objective and that there are stable patterns of interaction that can be quantified and "mechanisms" inferred.
Likewise, with a rational approach, it is common-sense that if "like-meanings" can structurally reinforce each, then travel, new environments and beginnings of new social patterns are nexus points. They indicate an increase in probable pathways for meaningful experiences. I do think that we can image and/or imagine the workings of structured information. The term informational object*, at least for me, is a useful approximation and model for assigning pragmatic terms and quantities to the interactions. Of course, if this is true, science/maths should have already have past progress available as substance for new theories.
Logic as an empirical theory may be a great starting place. In this way "meaning" can expand its role from - just subjectivity - to objective relations. Informational objects can lead to the belief that "ideas whose time (and space) has come" is real a literal way.
I enjoy your poetic posts. The picture, for me, is more pragmatic and in particular, tied to known information processing laws. Plato's forms don't fit the bill. Rather than unchanging forms, informational measurements are tied to probabilistic real-world occasions, with an eye to potential objects, events and processes. I do strongly agree with what you said about deep-emotions being an active generator of meaningful structures.Every time a man looked at this watch with any kind of feelings, perhaps that ties an "objective" thread of meaning to that point in time and space in the story. And further, the concept of a "watch" makes this not just a collection of metal and quartz atoms, but the particular form and function of this object which is recognizable as a watch ties it together with all other watches. (This turns reductionism on its head and says that watches as a concept are real and objective like a platonic ideal which are then cast into various forms of watches - instead of materialist reductionism which says: it's not a watch, but just a collection of particles that have been fashioned into a useful form and by induction of similar forms we call it a watch.)
Putting it all together, we have an informational object which is the collection of woven threads of meaning around every aspect of this watch and its long story.
Since these threads of meaning are real and objective, they could be seen by a third party (like a psychic) and they could potentially draw in related meaningful events such that a synchronicity occurs. They could also be tied to deeply held feelings in the men who possessed the watch such that even after death, the disembodied consciousness of the former owner finds himself drawn to the watch.
I enjoy your poetic posts. The picture, for me, is more pragmatic and in particular, tied to known information processing laws. Plato's forms don't fit the bill. Rather than unchanging forms, informational measurements are tied to probabilistic real-world occasions, with an eye to potential objects, events and processes. I do strongly agree with what you said about deep-emotions being an active generator of meaningful structures.
Your physical watch is a structured object of engaged metal parts. The "watch" is also an informational object with a real-world connection to measured flow of time. The watch is designed to process standardized intervals that can communicate mutual information (time passage for the watch and the agent being virtually identical, hence mutual) to an agent who knows and understands its coded display. There are worldly consequences for an agent who can adjust to the timing of real events. (like avoiding being late, which is meaningful)
Further, the watch's inscription can inspire a change in behavior, as a personal message, such that you as an agent can experience a creative solution. An emotional decision can connect to other meaningful content of informational objects of other people in your memory (or imagination). My worldview sees meanings being associated with the the formal data-set of information objects, just as physical objects have states of energy associated with material structures.
Informational objects can persist in states that over-arch physical time and space. This fact does break-up reductionist ideas about determinism. I would suggest the idea of a physical singularity at the beginning of time has a proceeding state of real probability and potential for manifestation. The informational object of the big-banging exists before it manifests physically and echos as an informational object for all time.
All of reality is mostly information - explicitly the past and the future consisting only of information. We can to some degree, measure the informational objects in both. We can only measure physical objects in the here and now.
In physical science there are two primary categories for the units of measure; those quantifying mass, size and orientation. And those quantifying force and potentials for forces.I have thoughts on your comments here, but first, how do you define information?
Shannon entropy is one of the most important metrics in information theory. Entropy measures the uncertainty associated with a random variable, i.e. the expected value of the information in the message (in classical informatics it is measured in bits).
Data as constraining affordances—answers waiting for the relevant questions—are transformed into factual information by being processed semantically at a given LoA (alternatively: the relevant question is associated to the right answer at a given LoA). Once data as constraining affordances have been elaborated into factual information at a given LoA, the next question is whether truth values supervene on factual information.- Floridi
In physical science there are two primary categories for the units of measure; those quantifying mass, size and orientation. And those quantifying force and potentials for forces.
In information science there are two primary categories for the units of measure; those quantifying uncertainty in bits (Shannon Entropy) and those documenting potentially meaningful relations, such as linguistics, logic and organization.
My method of analysis is to simplify the wicked complexity in the terms and fields of information study, by comparing physical objects to corresponding informational objects. We studied the atom, early on, by making 3 dimensional stick figures of particles and bonds to see the structure. I suggest that it helps to "visualize" informational objects as the software need to program simulations. In this way icons can be stuck together and arranged into patterns. Floridi (quoted in a prior post) connects informational objects with Object Oriented Programming (OOP). Floridi's entry in the SEP makes a brilliant case for the linguistics, logic and organization (meaning) side of information.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/
A physical object, like a compound molecule, is understood as to structure, by its units of measure relating to the weight, dimensions and spatial orientation. Then its temperature, potential to react and inner bond strengths describe its state of energy. I suggest that it is helpful to see a "information object" in an analogous manner as having a structural aspect and an active aspect. The formal information of the object (in units of bits and bytes associated with its representation in reality) is like matter; and the meaning is like energy.
In prior posts I have made an argument for a pragmatic view of how informational objects might be quantified in appropriate units of measure, as the science evolves. The TV version of precog, imagines signals from the future and I think your are arguing that this is not a practical approach with the science we have today. I do like your statement that "mining" information of personal importance is likely to be the same process, when "looking" into the past and into the future. I would label this as direct perception (J.J. Gibson) of affordances.It’s not that information about an event or stimulus itself is sent to a particular destination time in the past, as in a time machine, but that the sensitivity of neurons/synapses is altered or perturbed in a certain way by future information, just as it is altered by past information in the form of memory, via long-term potentiation. Precognition (I am suggesting) is just memory in reverse. When something encountered in the present resembles the future stimulus, it stands out or alerts us more than it otherwise would. Thus precognition is really the wrong word: It’s more of an associative preconditioning toward future rewards.
Eric
I've outlined the proposed mechanism in a few recent articles, especially these two: http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3441, http://thenightshirt.com/?p=3519 . In 2010, Seth Lloyd and colleagues proposed a method of time travel using quantum teleportation and post-selection, and then partly tested their hypothesis the following year. The method is the same as quantum teleportation already being studied for use in sending encrypted messages through space using entangled particles; the difference is that the entanglement is broken (within the confines of a quantum computer) and when one of the particles is entangled with a new particle, information associated with the new particle effectively transfers back in time to the other particle in the original pair....Physical particles just don't behave outside of physics rules -- no matter the social environment they are in. What kind of mechanism do you see changing chemical potentials in an organism's bio-chem with future informational changes?
The larger context for Lloyd's work and much of the most interesting stuff happening in QM these days is the insight of Yakir Aharonov back in the 1960s that "randomness" may not really exist; particles may behave unpredictably because of their future measurements (/interactions/entanglements), which we can't generally know about (except in a quantum computer where the output has been post-selected). Thus the future is an omnipresent influence on present physical behavior on a quantum scale; but because the future hasn't happened yet from our point of view, particle behavior is mostly opaque to us; thus it appears to us as if particles have a mind of their own, but they are simply obeying a kind of two-way causation.
maybe I missed your point... sorry if I did. I'm just saying the issue of moon bases as they relate to Ingo's RV seems out of context to both the question of psi and the larger question of alien contact... i.e. as long as we can all agree on UFOs being "real" and alien contact being "real" and that the US gov seems to invest a tremendous amount of effort in misdirecting/misinforming... well, if we can agree on all that, then we can discuss moon bases.It doesn't matter what you think of NASA or the possibility of moon bases, UFOs, etc. What makes you conclude that, because Ingo Swann says he remote viewed moon bases, he was accurate (let alone truthful), or that his interpretation of what he might have seen was correct? Neither you nor I have any proof of whether there really are alien bases on the moon, so it's an empirical question but one we just aren't in a position to answer. But being willing to trust any psychic, even one with a good track record, just on their word--"I saw X therefore X must exist" is not being rigorous. Ingo Swann was wrong on lots of his remote viewing sessions, as are all remote viewers. Deliberate exercise of psi (however we explain it) is subject to all kinds of vagaries and errors. (It's precisely those vagaries and characteristic errors that have led me to my particular argument about precognition, but that's a separate issue.)
Lloyd, though, readily admits the speculative nature of CTCs. “I have no idea which model is really right. Probably both of them are wrong,” he says. Of course, he adds, the other possibility is that Hawking is correct, “that CTCs simply don't and cannot exist." Time-travel party planners should save the champagne for themselves—their hoped-for future guests seem unlikely to arrive.