Comments on: A Precognitive Reality: Anomalous Mental Phenomena, II

By: DreamSayer

DreamSayer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 21:01:40 +0000

Its a rather complicated subject that i generally do not have the credentials to debate successfully, but i will give it a try. First off i would like to state that i have NO religious motivations, as i am more of an agnostic. I outline this do to it being a driving force behind some mad scientists bent on creationism. The current model of gravity outlines motion as the acting force, well this is just completely wrong. The reason it is wrong is because all objects solid & non solid contain an electromagnetic charge. This is proof that all objects are already in motion. We all know this not from quantum particles, but it is a well known in the physics community & was taken from the 7 hermetic principles & made to be basic functionality of understanding motion in general science. The phrase is, “All vibrates”. This has been proven on a molecular level. Atoms do infact vibrate. Thus discovering a distinct signal of everything ranging from sound & into light. This is commonly measured in HZ ranges. So as we can see all atomic particles in a vortex of resistence, we must realize that this is not the case, as atoms mingle as well. This can be seen in balancing of electrons in chemical compounds. This balance is an electrical fussion. These exchanges can take on advanced properties or require much more extensive means of bonding such as ionic & covalence. These vortexes can switch, act violently, or merge. So now we come to the conclusive evidence that it is TENSION that is this working model. By creating or releasing tension on bodies in motion. This is why if you have a shuttle out in space, that space debree doesnt stick to the sides of the craft unless electromagnetic(static) charge takes effect. So clearly a more dominant vortex would drag in smaller objects, but we know thats just wrong. As tension plays the key role in clockwise & counterclockwise forces. Imagine that, a theory that aligns with time/space itself. So for this model of gravity to work, these variables must be taken into account for the expansion of the universe, as a vaccuum of space doesnt outline exactly WHAT is keeping it all together. I would hate to fuel the dark matter/dark energy/string theory tin foil hat wearing, but there is an obvious force unseen. It cannot be pinned down by an equation that only seems to have an effect primarily on atmosphere based celestial bodies. So we separate variables of ozone & other friction based laws as if they were toolbar add ons to your favorite browser, instead of calculating in all accounts of forces being acted on. A kind of half ass way of selling an idea of gravity with minimal steps at proving any causality, as it becomes far from mutable with other adjacent sciences. This then creates a competing environment where discoveries are based on beating out that other physicist you went to school with or weighing credibility by guidelines that are nothing short of paradigms. You can see what happens to ones career when they take on a metaphysical realm, or refuse to use carbon-14 in dating methods, to gain better accuracy with zirkonium/uranium systems beyond the 60,000 year mark. As the carbon paradigm has thrown out several predated skulls for just this reason(prehistoric). If you spent thousands of dollars on knowledge that wasnt true, would you let someone tell you everything you learned was wrong?? And why are these proffessors acting like children with masters degrees, as if they made the discoveries themselves or that they couldnt stand the embarassment of being wrong?? Because education does not outline your level of maturity no more than it outlines your level of perception. Infact our brains are in simple design of storing memory, so why do our schools revere this as some higher intelligence framed in standard IQ tests?? When clearly all the knowledge in the world will do you no good if you do not have the comprehensive understanding to percieve those elements. As we cram for tests, we store this un needed information into short term memory just long enough to pass our finals. All the while not really grasping its meaning. We live in a world where few actually percieve beyond there own face. So basically what we are dealing with is rebuilding a new model outlining EM field interaction & calculating all variables into the equation with proper understanding of ALL forces involved. If they would like to slap a sticker on it afterwards & call it gravity, then thats fine with me. But a simple gravity model does not outline tension,friction,etc. at current design, this can be observed by the JEWELS during impact, which seems to be a variable unlooked. as 2 objects dropped at different hieghts still produce the same amount of energy output. This can only be explained by ozone density & EM field intensity. By simply reversing this vortex would simulate what THEY refer to as anti-gravity. This factor cannot be overlooked.

By: cl

cl — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 19:27:35 +0000

DreamSayer,

Thanks for an interesting and thoughtful comment. I welcome many more, of course, presuming I write anything else that piques your interest. If you’d care to explain, I do have a few questions. You wrote that gravity was a “non-working function,” and that it was “unproved.” What exactly did you mean by that?

By: DreamSayer

DreamSayer — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:52:21 +0000

I have experienced precognition ever since i percieved consciousness. Your description is right on. The debate here is a strong one. As these can only be explained to be pre-recordings or Pre-memory. I have woken up at 3 hours REM by means of alarm clock. I was a bit of an insomniac, as i only left myself 3 hours of sleep before work. I awoke to the strangest ?dream? It was full press coverage of the before & after of balloon boy, it then started to unfold 5 days later. This is the strange part, it played back what i was seeing & even news coverage on later days all in what felt like 15 minutes of dream time. But what had played back was roughly an hour or more. A definate time variation in consciousness that allows us to streamline outside of traditional time/space measurements. This may be in speculation as many quantum theories are available for boggling your mind & potencially missleading you. But time/space factors do play a profound role when dealing with EM field intensity. This has been observed for lack of description from EM wave variations as we step away from another attracting/repeling object. This can be best seen when a shuttle breaks orbit from the Earth. With the absence of EM field interaction, time is a completely different model than Einstines ‘E=mc2′ as other factors begin to interviene, such as background radiation & gamma pools(moon?). The prospects of quantum integration then becomes an obtainable concept to the snub nozed Modern physicist who want hard facts. As we can only question these same physicists that claim facts still play around with a non-working function called gravity. Yet, gravity is still unproven & has no relevance to actual falling objects. Jewels intensity of impact still remains the same, which outlines the clear relation to EM fields playing a profound role in the coined “gravity”. The fibonnacci(Phi) represents this not as polarity, yet vortexes going in opposing/equal directions. So who is drawing these models??? I mean, our whole basis of sound is drawn on a A=440HZ measurement. But i can here the damn guitar & i clearly hear the A=432HZ. So maybe perception is this aspect which forms our views of reality. Maybe by even being the one actually projecting it ourselves, instead of just random as most would have you believe.

By: cl

cl — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 23:12:43 +0000

Hey there. Sorry to get back so late. I finally had some time to sit down and address the backlog
of comments that had built up over the holidays and preceding weeks.

Our minds are generally good predictive engines — otherwise we’d have no reason to attempt to do anything. So a good prediction in this case does not necessarily require any non-physical cause.

I agree with both of those statements, and I certainly appreciate your willingness to offer rational explanations. I also agree that with or without drugs, “brains sometimes do funny things.”
The problem is that your first materialistic explanation is completely implausible; I could not have caught a glimpse of them, or heard their voices from where I was, in the loud and enclosed kitchen without a direct line of sight to the table they sat at. That’s precisely why the hostess came to inform me.

As to why your brain/mind chose to show you this prediction in such a vivid way, that is itself interesting but might be accountable for by a strictly materialist theory.

Certainly, but..

Your article conflates the mystery of why you had this experience with how you could have had it. Only the latter is problematic to a materialist theory of mind.

How so? Unless I’m just off in left field or misunderstanding you here, I don’t see how I’ve conflated the former with the latter.

People who suffer recurrent bouts of déjà vu haven’t been shown to be able to predict the future.

Then perhaps we’re dealing with something that’s distinct from déjà vu? That’s actually exactly what I’m arguing.

By: ttch

ttch — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 19:04:32 +0000

Here’s a relentlessly materialistic possible explanation: You had seen these guys before, doing the same routine as what you saw (I myself do roughly the same things as you describe). However you’d seen hundreds of customers and had no special reason to consciously remember these. Then, while doing a repetitive task and repetitiously mulling over something else, you hear a fragment of one of their voices or perhaps catch just a glimpse of one of them through a swinging door — again, in either case consciously irrelevant thus forgettable — and your mind suddenly and vividly constructs what it expects to happen. And behold! It’s right, because everyone is behaving exactly as you’d expect them to behave.
Our minds are generally good predictive engines — otherwise we’d have no reason to attempt to do anything. So a good prediction in this case does not necessarily require any non-physical cause.
As to why your brain/mind chose to show you this prediction in such a vivid way, that is itself interesting but might be accountable for by a strictly materialist theory. Your article conflates the mystery of why you had this experience with how you could have had it. Only the latter is problematic to a materialist theory of mind.
Another materialist explanation would involve the phenomenon of “déjà vu”, where current happenings are experienced as also being remembered. Since one’s memories aren’t normally all recorded, it is impossible after an event to know whether or not a particular memory preceded it. But since the feeling of something being remembered is itself a neural event, the phenomenon probably has a neural explanation: People who suffer recurrent bouts of déjà vu haven’t been shown to be able to predict the future.
In your case, perhaps you felt something very strange, and only afterward “filled-in” that time with the events that followed, that themselves had a feeling of being remembered. I know you’re sure that wasn’t the case, but people’s perceptions and memories are very malleable. (I myself have clear memories of a few things that I know could not have happened.)
Your spiritual exploration at the time also might have made you more suggestible.
You don’t state whether or not you had ever used drugs before that time, but even without them, brains sometimes do funny things.
As you say, since this was a one-time occurrence, we’ll never know.