Have you existed before?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by birch, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. river

    Messages:
    9,793

    Is this true ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    What are you on about ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Yes. Remote viewing isn't real. Should be easy to show if it was true.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    OK, I'm thinking of a snack food. What is it?
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    So you have no idea of what remote viewing is ?
     
  9. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    Being able to sense things at a distance with your mind only?
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    No visualize things at distance .
     
  11. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    OK visualize.

    I have in my view a kind of snack, a product. Can you see it? If so, what is it?

    I know you aren't claiming to have this skill, but at least this is the kind of test that could be performed. Just with more scientific rigor.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    So you have no idea that remote viewing has been going on since the 60's ?
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,949
    How does remote viewing prove that the universe is not only material? I can imagine several mechanisms that could accomplish it. What if all of us were highly sophisticated androids only we didn't know it? We send out billions of spore sized sensors that spread over the planet and report back information in the form of sensory impressions.

    Note, I'm not admitting that sensory viewing is real, just saying what if it were real.
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Do you really believe in what your saying ?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,467
    Regarding the OP: no, that wasn't me, I had nothing to do with it.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,301
    Remote viewing is a particular flavor of ESP.
    People have been claiming ESP for time untold. It would be quite easy to verify ESP. Unlike ghosts or UFOs, ESP can be tested under controlled conditions.
    Yet, apart from a few specious tests, it has never produced reliable results, let alone a mechanism by which it might operate.

    You would think, what with all these strong proponents, they would theorize a mechanism by which ESP could occur, and then devise tests that would verify it - or falsify it.
    But you don't see a lot of unbiased science happening, do you? Do you see these proponents exploring the mechanism by which the brain might communicate telepathically, then then testing that theory to establish its veracity? No, ESP works best when viewed through the veil of mystery.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Surprisingly , you also , have no knowledge of remote viewing .
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,301
    I have not provided anything by which you could judge how much knowledge I have. Your judgement stands self-evidently false.

    Unless you are refuting my one assertion that remote viewing is a subset of ESP - i.e. extra-sensory perception.
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    Then define ESP , as you know it .
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,301
    It is, literally, Extra-Sensory Perception.

    Problem is, no one has been able to put forth anything more than conjecture about what mechanism might be behind the results of the experiments. There's no corroborating evidence (say, a previously unknown organ in the brain, or a detectable EM frequency), so they remain just that - conjecture.

    Other than simply describing puzzling results in lab experiments, it doesn't have a definition (since a definition would specify a testable mechanism).

    It's like defining dark energy. So far, we can't; we simply have results, but no model/mechanism.
    (The difference between ESP and DE is that anyone with the right instruments can look up and acquire their own data for themselves and, in doing so, verify that the phenomenon is not illusory, biased or faked.)
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,121
    Yep, best guess of what we are viewing. When everyone agrees, we call it reality.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    9,793
    The military thought otherwise .
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,301
    Indeed. And, with research, they too discovered that it was worthless.
     

Share This Page