.............
I accept the trillions to one possibility of multiple coincidences, particularly via dreams, so actually do not reject it as an option.
"Trillions to one possibility" would be a virtually impossible event; there are about 6 billion people on this planet; I believe that we each have about 6 dreams minimum each night. Hence there are about 36 billion dreams every single night. It would be extremely surprising if none came true.
The choice between coincidence and PSI is a real one and the fact that I perceive these events as more likely to be PSI but most on this list will clearly regard them as more likely to be coincidence produces an impasse making it pointless to raise any examples.
Which is commoner, a coincidence or a documented psychic event?
I have no reason to want to believe in PSI and disbelieve in coincidence. .
Then why make the choice which is far less likely?
And I take it we're not going to get any loinks to the lawnmower?
There is a lot of talk on here about scientific thinking. It is not scientific to extrapolate from isolated examples such as this TV show and its apparent expose to a universal statement that all mediums are tricksters.
Any that are not tricksters would happily agree to testing surely? Think of the advancements in understanding? Yet either they don't, or they fail miserably. This is what 'we' base our assertions on. The utter lack of evidence where, if there were any basis to it, it would be readily available.
Some people are genuinely 'deluded' into thinking they have psychic abilities , they think beyond reasonable doubt they have a gift which they want to help people with it.
Although it collectively earns a lot of money (but hard to 'make it big') and I have no doubt some people do it to get money and learn the tricks of the trade.
There is no empirical proof for the undeniable existence of the para-normal , nor is there empirical proof it does not exist.
in terms of coincidence or chance these people are right, it has to recognized as the mathematical probability, not the 'feeling'.
Some people argue the chances are so small that these people 'must' be genuine, but we're yet to see a test where they give precise information e.g. full life stories of the deceased, without doubt of no research (by the psychic) whatsoever.
As to what my dream diary stated it stated in two or three sentences all the salient features - paper mill, fire, bridge etc and had no extraneous sentences not relevant.
My comment on trillions to one, by the way, is based on the the fact that we are talking about the linking of multiple specific key elements of a dream with multiple elements of reality. Thus raising the odds.
Like I said I was not attempting to convince any of you. Simply explaining why I have been interested in this subject.
Jaycee Dove: It's certainly an interesting example.
My first thought is that the dream itself may have been what I like to think of as an "anxiety dream", ie, when you know you're doing something the following day and you dream about it. In your example you knew you'd be taking on a 50 mile trek.. no small feat.. and so perhaps were dreaming of that. I presume you had a rough idea of what the route would be or at least the nature of the route.. ie.. across country side, that sort of thing.
So it's possible I suppose you were dreaming of the 50 mile walk and happened to dream of a scene that then matched one you came across during the 50 miles of walking. I imagine you'd have come across a lot of different scenes over the 50 miles.
As for the details well I don't know. Only you can describe the scene you actually saw and the scene you wrote down. But I do believe it was a coincidence. I'd also wonder how many of the other dreams led to real events?
As for the scene itself.. a bridge, a building, a fire.. they're not very random.. in a way they compliment each other. I mean I could even go as far as to argue that quite often when you walk down a country lane, there are old country houses that are burning wood fires along the route and streams of water. They're part of the same scene normally.
Also, your dream was wrong.. the building wasn't on fire. A small detail perhaps but if you believe you visualised the future, that bit was wrong.
I'm not attacking your experience btw, just offering my view.
There is no need for argument or discussion, all Phsycics/mediums are lying scumbags..... simples.
They make stuff up, some are better at making up lies than others, they all use similar techniques to extrapolate information from their victims.
Now, having established that the are ALL lying, we have to look at the motives.
There is only one...... money.
So they are lying thieves.
That they might give people spiritual comfort is irrelevant, unless they do their readings for free and advise beforehand that they are reading the person and not communicating with the dead.
I go back to this...... what the hell are all these dead people doing wandering around talking about odd combinations of people in their family to reach the number 5, what colour their sisters dog was, a cut they got on their finger when they were 8.... and they feel the urge to only say these things via creepy little people who charge money to allow them to do the talking.... And why do they mix up their chats with dead dudes by adding other pointless bits of information (you lost a job recently, your secretly gay, you once had a toy rabbit).
As to what my dream diary stated it stated in two or three sentences all the salient features - paper mill, fire, bridge etc and had no extraneous sentences not relevant.
Yeah, you kinda already said that. I asked for the specific contents of your diary.
My thoughts are that, most likely:
a) you're lying
b) you're embellishing a smaller coincidence into a bigger one
c) you genuinely did dream that or at least write it, but had a reason for doing so which you either don't remember, or choose to suppress for the purpose of the story (so a bit of b) again).
I mean, if there's a paper mill nearby, somebody may have spoken about it, you may have seen it somehow somewhere else, just anything. This is the problem with anecdotes like this, there can be a rational explanation, but there's so little information given that it's impossible to know what it is.
We use a fraction of what our brains are capable of. We became lazy as evolution and technology moved forward. Parts of the brain are defunked if you like, it's like having an appendix that serves no real purpose anymore.
Body language is a remarkable way of pulling information off each other when we may not always even be aware of it. How do you think so called cavemen communicated with each other, they didn't have an alphabet with a pissing dictionary.... a few grunts maybe! Derren's a master in his art, something to be envious of because not only does he prove his actions to be what they are, showmanship, suggestion, trickery etc he even explains it for the thickos in the corner
Anybody I know who's died, I know would never come back to scare the living shit out of me and if they could they'd tell it as it is not how we want to hear it so basically it's about those who feel they can communicate with the dead to give proof....and nobody ever has.
We use a fraction of what our brains are capable of. We became lazy as evolution and technology moved forward. Parts of the brain are defunked if you like, it's like having an appendix that serves no real purpose anymore.
Body language is a remarkable way of pulling information off each other when we may not always even be aware of it. How do you think so called cavemen communicated with each other, they didn't have an alphabet with a pissing dictionary.... a few grunts maybe! Derren's a master in his art, something to be envious of because not only does he prove his actions to be what they are, showmanship, suggestion, trickery etc he even explains it for the thickos in the corner
Anybody I know who's died, I know would never come back to scare the living shit out of me and if they could they'd tell it as it is not how we want to hear it so basically it's about those who feel they can communicate with the dead to give proof....and nobody ever has.
That's a myth, most commonly asserted that we only use 10% of our potential brain power. IIRC, the confusion results from the brain only being active in certain areas at particular times.
Are people on here actually trying to defend psychics????
How odd.........
Seriously, think about it........ random little tossers claiming they (and they alone) can somehow talk to dead spirits, on demand, anywhere in the world it seems.
Apparently the dead dont actually have conversations, they just babble about pointless rubbish before saying that they are happy.....
these psychics also double up as mind readers and seem to know magic facts about everyone....... spooky
ITS ALL PISH..... GIANT BUCKETS OF PISH.
Horribly no one seems to want to disagree outright with me, cowards
Just wanted to say that I respect the reply from Inspiration that was a genuine, responsible attempt to discuss my experience.
I do not think it really works for me, as the location where the event occurred was over 30 miles from my home in a town I had not visited before. So I was not familiar with the route.
But I can certainly accept the logic of the attempted argument. And I can totally appreciate the possibilities inherent within it to try to resolve my experience. It is the sort of reduction that I have tried to make work myself over the years and would be perfectly happy if I could credibly do so. As contrary to the apparent views of some on here I have no desire for the mystical over the rational... IF the rational works satisfactorily thats fine by me.
Indeed, ironically, my work lies in researching strange phenomena and I have over the years explained in none supernatural ways about 95% of the cases I have investigated. I am simply willing to consider that there might be something interesting in the 5% that I have not (yet).
However, I am bowing out of here as some of the histrionic replies about mediums are just too much. Sorry.
Though I would offer a fairly simple response to the one about motives. As it tends to flunk badly in that quite a few people who think they are mediums do not do stage shows, do not even charge fees and offer what they see without asking for anything in return - so suggesting that they are lying thieves or scumbags is not terribly accurate given that fact.
As for the various options over my dream example - like I said before I posted it, I knew I was not going to be able to prove it.
But how to respond to the suggestions that I might be lying (since I'm not) or that I somehow wrote the diary entry afterwards (to prove something even though there only ever WAS a something to prove because I had written it into my diary beforehand?)
I have enjoyed the debate, but time to move on.
Though I will be watching DB next week, of course.
That's a shame, as your example was very interesting. And I would still have liked an answer to the questions I asked you earlier in the thread, and would also have liked a word-for-word transcription of what was written in your dream diary. In fact, I'd have more questions for you, but if you're leaving the discussion, then there's no point in asking them.
Just wanted to say that I respect the reply from Inspiration that was a genuine, responsible attempt to discuss my experience.
At the end of the day we are but humans, passing through time trying to make sense of what is happening in our lives and what is taking place around us. Sometimes things happen that totally throw us and it sounds like your dream was such an experience. I'm not a fan of attacking peoples experiences.. they're very personal and raw to that person and I've found trying to win an argument by attacking someones experience is never going to work. No one here will be able to prove you didn't dream what you saw the next day. The most we can do is suggest reasons why this may have been a coincidence but ultimately you're grown up enough to come to your own conclusions.
That's a shame, as your example was very interesting. And I would still have liked an answer to the questions I asked you earlier in the thread, and would also have liked a word-for-word transcription of what was written in your dream diary. In fact, I'd have more questions for you, but if you're leaving the discussion, then there's no point in asking them.
My feelings exactly, especially since he/she hasn't answered any of the questions I asked earlier.
There are so many here who can't grasp the importance of not looking at their unusual experiences in isolation from the myriad of mundane forgettable events in their lives. But that's just the problem, the non events are forgettable and the weird ones stand out from the crowd. Where a believer in PSI sees some events as proof or at least an indication of something psychic going on, a statistician will look at exactly the same events and say no big deal, it's all well within statistical probability of coincidence when looked at in the bigger picture of all events.
The other problem with many stories of premonitions is one of selective memory of aspects in the dream and the readiness to interpret subsequent events selectively or vaguely enough to fit the dream or premonition, trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
Astrology and horoscopes is one such widespread example of how people interpret events or predictions to fit a belief.
Here's a simple experiment illustrating this point
People are gullible. Believers interpret events in such a way that only further reinforces their beliefs.
That's why paranormal phenomenon claims must be subjected to vigorous well thought out experiments and statistical analysis before given any credence.
There was a BBC Horizon documentary a few years back which epitomises the need for proper control experiments and blind data gathering. It debunks homeopathy, again involving James Randi. This clip is the conclusion, part five of five. The programme as a whole shows how gullible even reputable scientists can be in interpreting data.
I don't think Derren Brown's ever been second-rate at anything.
It's a sniping comment that is uncalled for. One can appraise Randi without having to denigrate others that cross over into his field.
Indeed, every help is welcome and mr. Randi does not have the monopoly on debunking psychics. IMHO Derren did a good job. He's as gentlemanlike in his approach as mr. Randi, whom I greatly admire.
As for Derren ever been second rate. He's not so good at the mainstream magic. "Stopping his heartbeat" with a rubber ball that one could clearly see outlined beneath his left sleeve. Driving nails into the skull. Using see-thru blindfolds, Walking on glass etc. That's second if not third rate. It's what you could see on that lame The Next Uri Geller Show. He should refrain from things like that and stick to his strenghts.
Note, this is not an attack on Derren. I think he's a great performer.
How can anyone contact 'the dead' when these so called 'dead' are doing nothing more than rotting in the ground or sitting in an urn on a mantelpiece?
This psychic crap is nothing more than a load of rubbish, a load of rubbish aimed at fleecing as many gullible, and vulnerable, people out of as much money as possible!
in the last few years i have lost my parents husband a nd son,but no way would i go to a huge gathering to talk to them ,and why would they want to turn up and chat about personal things in front of strangers?i miss them greatly but i know when its mine turn to join them we can have a good natter and laugh up there.i have my memories and thats what is important.when my son died i did visit a few mediums on a one to one basis.they were not any help and all i did was line their pockets with my money.i think i have a bit of a psychic mind myself but i woudnt dream of using it for any money purpose or fleecing the vunerable.
I don't think Derren Brown's ever been second-rate at anything.
It's a sniping comment that is uncalled for. One can appraise Randi without having to denigrate others that cross over into his field.
Okay, maybe it was a bit uncalled for, (it was the drink talking) and I did enjoy the show. It's just that as an investigative piece it lacked substance, for me anyway.
was well planned and succinct. It did more to expose the mediums in 10 minutes than Derren's whole show.
As for James versus Derren at magic tricks, I've no idea who's best, and don't really care, not my cup of tea entertainment wise.
We use a fraction of what our brains are capable of.
Not true.
It is wayyyyyy so true, have you never met anyone who carries on like they've got a brain the size of a pea or to put it another way, no lights on upstairs
It is wayyyyyy so true, have you never met anyone who carries on like they've got a brain the size of a pea or to put it another way, no lights on upstairs
I'm sure he has, in this thread.
Intelligence isn't how much of your brain you use, nor is it necessarily how big your brain is.
Comments
Then why make the choice which is far less likely?
And I take it we're not going to get any loinks to the lawnmower?
Any that are not tricksters would happily agree to testing surely? Think of the advancements in understanding? Yet either they don't, or they fail miserably. This is what 'we' base our assertions on. The utter lack of evidence where, if there were any basis to it, it would be readily available.
Although it collectively earns a lot of money (but hard to 'make it big') and I have no doubt some people do it to get money and learn the tricks of the trade.
There is no empirical proof for the undeniable existence of the para-normal , nor is there empirical proof it does not exist.
in terms of coincidence or chance these people are right, it has to recognized as the mathematical probability, not the 'feeling'.
Some people argue the chances are so small that these people 'must' be genuine, but we're yet to see a test where they give precise information e.g. full life stories of the deceased, without doubt of no research (by the psychic) whatsoever.
As to what my dream diary stated it stated in two or three sentences all the salient features - paper mill, fire, bridge etc and had no extraneous sentences not relevant.
My comment on trillions to one, by the way, is based on the the fact that we are talking about the linking of multiple specific key elements of a dream with multiple elements of reality. Thus raising the odds.
Like I said I was not attempting to convince any of you. Simply explaining why I have been interested in this subject.
My first thought is that the dream itself may have been what I like to think of as an "anxiety dream", ie, when you know you're doing something the following day and you dream about it. In your example you knew you'd be taking on a 50 mile trek.. no small feat.. and so perhaps were dreaming of that. I presume you had a rough idea of what the route would be or at least the nature of the route.. ie.. across country side, that sort of thing.
So it's possible I suppose you were dreaming of the 50 mile walk and happened to dream of a scene that then matched one you came across during the 50 miles of walking. I imagine you'd have come across a lot of different scenes over the 50 miles.
As for the details well I don't know. Only you can describe the scene you actually saw and the scene you wrote down. But I do believe it was a coincidence. I'd also wonder how many of the other dreams led to real events?
As for the scene itself.. a bridge, a building, a fire.. they're not very random.. in a way they compliment each other. I mean I could even go as far as to argue that quite often when you walk down a country lane, there are old country houses that are burning wood fires along the route and streams of water. They're part of the same scene normally.
Also, your dream was wrong.. the building wasn't on fire. A small detail perhaps but if you believe you visualised the future, that bit was wrong.
I'm not attacking your experience btw, just offering my view.
They make stuff up, some are better at making up lies than others, they all use similar techniques to extrapolate information from their victims.
Now, having established that the are ALL lying, we have to look at the motives.
There is only one...... money.
So they are lying thieves.
That they might give people spiritual comfort is irrelevant, unless they do their readings for free and advise beforehand that they are reading the person and not communicating with the dead.
I go back to this...... what the hell are all these dead people doing wandering around talking about odd combinations of people in their family to reach the number 5, what colour their sisters dog was, a cut they got on their finger when they were 8.... and they feel the urge to only say these things via creepy little people who charge money to allow them to do the talking.... And why do they mix up their chats with dead dudes by adding other pointless bits of information (you lost a job recently, your secretly gay, you once had a toy rabbit).
Challenging a rabid believer only makes the belief more inviolate.
And because the human brain is a reality-making machine- delivering bespoke perspective on a malleable reality.
You'll never pin them down.
The best defence against the dark arts is logic- pure sustainable logic.
No one can escape its grasp.
However, if a discipline say, 'occult phenomena', doesn't fit within the apparatus of truth.
It's hard to convince the believer that their visions are part psychotic, mostly- fantastical.
Yeah, you kinda already said that. I asked for the specific contents of your diary.
My thoughts are that, most likely:
a) you're lying
b) you're embellishing a smaller coincidence into a bigger one
c) you genuinely did dream that or at least write it, but had a reason for doing so which you either don't remember, or choose to suppress for the purpose of the story (so a bit of b) again).
I mean, if there's a paper mill nearby, somebody may have spoken about it, you may have seen it somehow somewhere else, just anything. This is the problem with anecdotes like this, there can be a rational explanation, but there's so little information given that it's impossible to know what it is.
Body language is a remarkable way of pulling information off each other when we may not always even be aware of it. How do you think so called cavemen communicated with each other, they didn't have an alphabet with a pissing dictionary.... a few grunts maybe! Derren's a master in his art, something to be envious of because not only does he prove his actions to be what they are, showmanship, suggestion, trickery etc he even explains it for the thickos in the corner
Anybody I know who's died, I know would never come back to scare the living shit out of me and if they could they'd tell it as it is not how we want to hear it so basically it's about those who feel they can communicate with the dead to give proof....and nobody ever has.
Are people on here actually trying to defend psychics????
How odd.........
Seriously, think about it........ random little tossers claiming they (and they alone) can somehow talk to dead spirits, on demand, anywhere in the world it seems.
Apparently the dead dont actually have conversations, they just babble about pointless rubbish before saying that they are happy.....
these psychics also double up as mind readers and seem to know magic facts about everyone....... spooky
ITS ALL PISH..... GIANT BUCKETS OF PISH.
Horribly no one seems to want to disagree outright with me, cowards
I do not think it really works for me, as the location where the event occurred was over 30 miles from my home in a town I had not visited before. So I was not familiar with the route.
But I can certainly accept the logic of the attempted argument. And I can totally appreciate the possibilities inherent within it to try to resolve my experience. It is the sort of reduction that I have tried to make work myself over the years and would be perfectly happy if I could credibly do so. As contrary to the apparent views of some on here I have no desire for the mystical over the rational... IF the rational works satisfactorily thats fine by me.
Indeed, ironically, my work lies in researching strange phenomena and I have over the years explained in none supernatural ways about 95% of the cases I have investigated. I am simply willing to consider that there might be something interesting in the 5% that I have not (yet).
However, I am bowing out of here as some of the histrionic replies about mediums are just too much. Sorry.
Though I would offer a fairly simple response to the one about motives. As it tends to flunk badly in that quite a few people who think they are mediums do not do stage shows, do not even charge fees and offer what they see without asking for anything in return - so suggesting that they are lying thieves or scumbags is not terribly accurate given that fact.
As for the various options over my dream example - like I said before I posted it, I knew I was not going to be able to prove it.
But how to respond to the suggestions that I might be lying (since I'm not) or that I somehow wrote the diary entry afterwards (to prove something even though there only ever WAS a something to prove because I had written it into my diary beforehand?)
I have enjoyed the debate, but time to move on.
Though I will be watching DB next week, of course.
Not true.
Also not true. Current scientific thinking is that spoken language evolved long before modern humans.
That's a shame, as your example was very interesting. And I would still have liked an answer to the questions I asked you earlier in the thread, and would also have liked a word-for-word transcription of what was written in your dream diary. In fact, I'd have more questions for you, but if you're leaving the discussion, then there's no point in asking them.
At the end of the day we are but humans, passing through time trying to make sense of what is happening in our lives and what is taking place around us. Sometimes things happen that totally throw us and it sounds like your dream was such an experience. I'm not a fan of attacking peoples experiences.. they're very personal and raw to that person and I've found trying to win an argument by attacking someones experience is never going to work. No one here will be able to prove you didn't dream what you saw the next day. The most we can do is suggest reasons why this may have been a coincidence but ultimately you're grown up enough to come to your own conclusions.
My feelings exactly, especially since he/she hasn't answered any of the questions I asked earlier.
The other problem with many stories of premonitions is one of selective memory of aspects in the dream and the readiness to interpret subsequent events selectively or vaguely enough to fit the dream or premonition, trying to force a square peg through a round hole.
Astrology and horoscopes is one such widespread example of how people interpret events or predictions to fit a belief.
Here's a simple experiment illustrating this point
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw
People are gullible. Believers interpret events in such a way that only further reinforces their beliefs.
That's why paranormal phenomenon claims must be subjected to vigorous well thought out experiments and statistical analysis before given any credence.
There was a BBC Horizon documentary a few years back which epitomises the need for proper control experiments and blind data gathering. It debunks homeopathy, again involving James Randi. This clip is the conclusion, part five of five. The programme as a whole shows how gullible even reputable scientists can be in interpreting data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhSzOShJb2U
Whilst Derren Brown should be commended for his attempts at exposing psychic charlatans, in reality he's just a second rate James Randi, if that.
It's a sniping comment that is uncalled for. One can appraise Randi without having to denigrate others that cross over into his field.
Indeed, every help is welcome and mr. Randi does not have the monopoly on debunking psychics. IMHO Derren did a good job. He's as gentlemanlike in his approach as mr. Randi, whom I greatly admire.
As for Derren ever been second rate. He's not so good at the mainstream magic. "Stopping his heartbeat" with a rubber ball that one could clearly see outlined beneath his left sleeve. Driving nails into the skull. Using see-thru blindfolds, Walking on glass etc. That's second if not third rate. It's what you could see on that lame The Next Uri Geller Show. He should refrain from things like that and stick to his strenghts.
Note, this is not an attack on Derren. I think he's a great performer.
This psychic crap is nothing more than a load of rubbish, a load of rubbish aimed at fleecing as many gullible, and vulnerable, people out of as much money as possible!
Okay, maybe it was a bit uncalled for, (it was the drink talking) and I did enjoy the show. It's just that as an investigative piece it lacked substance, for me anyway.
The clip posted earlier
was well planned and succinct. It did more to expose the mediums in 10 minutes than Derren's whole show.
As for James versus Derren at magic tricks, I've no idea who's best, and don't really care, not my cup of tea entertainment wise.
It is wayyyyyy so true, have you never met anyone who carries on like they've got a brain the size of a pea or to put it another way, no lights on upstairs
Yeah there probably was a spoken language before modern humans .....grunt, grunt and more grunt with maybe a few screams thrown in
Intelligence isn't how much of your brain you use, nor is it necessarily how big your brain is.