Good stuff little whip.

I do know these flashes of precognition are a very real phenomenon, even if only because I myself have experienced them

Yes, it's this kind of subjectivity that many sceptics can't accept. It's just not scientific enough, in their view.

in vivid detail that was too remarkable to be coincidence.

If you got James Randi on the case, he would no doubt either chalk it up as a coincidence, or would dismiss it due to lack of proof. Even if you'd have painted the scene beforehand, it wouldn't have been enough evidence for him.

where the hell did that come from?

Psychic ability is natural. You obviously have an attuned knack which pops up every now and again little whip! Thanks for sharing it,

.

'Yes, it's this kind of subjectivity that many sceptics can't accept. It's just not scientific enough, in their view.' / 'Incidentally, psychic abilities come in many different forms, and not all are to do with knowing the future or seeing ghosts. Some have an ineffable awareness – knowledge – of God and the hereafter. Yet this would be too subjective for sceptics to accept.'

Yes, it would - particularly as 'an ineffable awareness - knowledge - of God and the hereafter' could just as easily be produced by any of a number of other phenomena, including (but not limited to) the onset of schizophrenia.

'I can't remember what the program was called to be honest. I caught it one evening and sat and watched it. James Randi was actually on it. He wouldn't give his $1m, because his argument was that the pyschic could have painted lots of paintings, and only picked out ones that were relevant by coincidence. Based on this logic, due to the laws of probability the psychic failed, in Randi's view.'

Which is scientifically sound. All he has to do to win the $1m is submit his paintings to Randi AS HE PAINTS THEM. This also illustrates why claims of precognitive dreaming ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. How many dreams do the claimants have in total, and what percentage of these appear to predict the future? Again, these are 'real world' claims, and ought to be tested against control groups to establish whether there are significant differences. I have had one or two dreams such as this in my time, but I find no argument for regarding them as anything more than quirks of coincidence. Again, not necessarily the more interesting explanation, but certainly the more rational.

'My argument was that belief in the existence of faries at the bottom of the garden is different to belief in heightened pyschic abilities.'
That's a position, not an argument. My argument remains that they are essentially the same, as there is no solid scientific evidence to support either.

' --Yet will mr. randi face the task of verifying the (at least plausibility) of the paintings coming from premonition, with an open, and unbiased mind....from what i have read of him, i doubt he could...'

The nature of science, properly conducted, is that it does just that ... it removes the biases and prejudices of both the experimenter and the test subject. Randi requires those who claim the $1m to submit to scientific scrutiny. The conditions are specified, fixed, and laid out on Randi's website for those with an inclination to look.

As for verifying 'plausibility', this is a concept with very little meaning. (I am tempted to return to my 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' analogy yet again, but I will resist ... LOL)

Furthermore, I didn't "conviently forget" all of her correct predictions. My recent article about her 2000 predictions shows you a hit/miss ratio for just one year. There are people who do that sort of thing all the time -- take a psychic's predictions, wait until the time they've predicted is past, and then research them to see how many were hits and how many were misses. It is just that sort of thing that makes me say that it is quite improbable that Ms. Browne is anything other than a petulant blowhard.

As for UFO's, I certainly believe that there are things flying about that are not readily identifiable. But making the leap from "unidentified" to "alien spacecraft" is something that there just isn't any reliable evidence for. Like the "Face on Mars," it's easy for something to look like something else due to blurry vision, distance, a whole host of things. Mathmatically, it seems very likely that there is life in some form somewhere in the universe -- there's a lot of space out there -- but I can't make a leap from "mathmatically probable" to "they're visiting us right now" at all -- physics makes that very improbable.

As for your space craft crash thing, that's anecdotal evidence -- and that doesn't work as scientific proof. Just like LW's dream (and I'm not calling you a liar, I believe you had the dream), it is an interesting thing to hear or read about but doesn't provide the sort of proof needed to pass scientific muster. I read sites like Jeff Rense's and time and again, all that's provided is anecdotal evidence. It's just not good enough.

Cheers.

'The religionist, however, deep down in his heart, will know a little secret.'
But in what way is this 'little secret' any different from the schizophrenic knowing that other people's eyes contain laser beams, or that TV programmes are sending him secret instructionsto kill his budgie?

'Our belief in God, and for most religionists our experience of God, actually depends on our level, or growth, of consciousness.'
This is what annoys me about this kind of excuse for an argument. On one hand, you argue that 'Those who are completely wrapped up with the intellect of the head' will always fail to understand faith. Then, without ever defining your terms, you throw in a completely unsubstantiated claim that religious people have a more developed 'consciousness'. ie. Elitism relating to the intellect is irrelevant, but elitism relating to the consciousness is significant. Pathetic.

But in what way is this 'little secret' any different from the schizophrenic knowing that other people's eyes contain laser beams, or that TV programmes are sending him secret instructionsto kill his budgie?

I was talking from within the context of a more mature, grounded spirituality than the things you refered to there.

'The fact that you described my views as "pathetic", means that you're on a different wavelength to me.'

No, not your views, just this particular argument. And I am perhaps guilty of using too emotive a word here; maybe 'flawed' would have been a better choice. Furthermore, I appreciate the fact that you continue to draw attention to the subjective nature of your argument.

So, my apologies AB. 'It's a question of sharing views in a friendly manner', as you put it.

As to the schizophrenia analogy, my point is this. As faith and belief are, as I think we agree, inherently subjective by nature, whence arises any judgement of spirituality being 'more mature, grounded'? ie. If the schizophrenic believes what he believes as genuinely as you or I believe what WE believe, who makes the judgement as to which is the better developed?

whence arises any judgement of spirituality being 'more mature, grounded'? … who makes the judgement as to which is the better developed?

Any human judgement, conclusion, or belief etc. must necessarily be drawn from a finite well of subjectivity, (i.e. from a person's consciousness). We are creators of our own experience, and only we as individuals can judge whether our model of the world, and our own points of view, are "enlightened" or not. It can't be any other way. Other people can try to tell you what’s right and what’s wrong, but we all have a choice. Naturally, as we grow and develop, our beliefs and our models of the world will change, and will ultimately lead (I believe) closer to enlightenment.

I appreciate the fact that you continue to draw attention to the subjective nature of your argument.

Yes. And it’s no less subjective than yours. When people have premonition-dreams, or when people have psychically intuitive beliefs about the nature of life, God or the hereafter, they don’t need “proof”, because their inner-convictions are proof enough. As you haven’t come across any form of proof or inner-conviction that would satisfy you personally, you choose not to believe in psychic ability, (or God, or whatever.) Yet your conclusions are still subjective nonetheless.

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. Therefore, all views and conclusions are necessarily subjective. How much our views are aligned with ‘What Is So’ is another matter, but that’s for us as individuals to decide. Interestingly, this 'subjective ground', from whence all views arise, is entirely consistent with the religious conviction that the Ultimate Dimension of Reality is Spirit, (i.e. Consciousness). Here, I’m talking about the nature of ‘the Infinite Existence’. If God is Spirit, then the Truth is a matter of consciousness, (which it clearly is anyway, regarding all human views.) Religion takes this principle of Spirit to a deeper, broader level, beyond mere human consciousness.

In my view, regarding ultimate issues of existence, religionists have their ladder against the right wall.

It hinges on the difference between believing / not believing and whether or not observable evidence exists to support a particular argument.

Hi Furry. I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think you’ve grasped the point I’ve been trying to make. I’ll try and clear a few things up, starting with larger aspects of reality and digging down to details.

Firstly, science has revealed that energy cannot be annihilated or newly created. It can only change form. Therefore, ‘Something’ must have existed for ever. It has no beginning and no end. (This is what I refer to as “the Infinite Existence.”) Naturally, “the Infinite” transcends our finite minds, and also transcends science. But what is its ultimate nature? In other words, is everything that exists made purely of materialistic stuff that can be weighed or measured by traditional scientific methods?

As a human example, consider a mother’s love for her child. Is there such thing as “spiritual wealth”? Do you believe in love? If not, then that’s your prerogative. But it might be wise to keep an open mind. Consciousness itself eludes scientific weighing and measuring. (Consciousness, or “spirit”, is the intrinsic ‘is-ness’ of your self-awareness, which experiences life, and which at this moment is reading this blog.)

Imagine living in the time when our scientists believed that the world was flat. This belief was simply due to a limited perspective. (In this case, it was a perspective in the physical sense, as opposed to the psychic sense.) Now imagine a spaceman from another planet landing on earth, and telling us that the world was round. We probably wouldn’t believe him. An open minded person might conclude, “I’ll believe that the world is round when observable evidence exists to support the claim”.

This would be a wise conclusion for the person to make. But my point is that in terms of spiritual awareness, a person with a small degree of psychic awareness is like the human who believed the world was flat. His perspective, in the psychic sense, was limited. A person with a large degree of psychic awareness, however, is like the enlightened spaceman, who had a greater perspective of reality.

Spiritually speaking, the evolution is this: Ignorance, faith, intuition, knowledge. Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs. Instead, their heart speaks a different language to the hardened scientific minded. (There is indeed a difference between the cleverness of the head and the wisdom of the heart.)

The wisdom of the ages teaches that “God is Spirit”, and that all is not death and finality. From my point of view, people who are psychically attuned are aware of deeper levels of reality that are equally as real as inanimate matter. These levels of reality are detectable and measurable, but not in the same sense as traditional scientific methods. (We’re all psychic, by the way. It’s just a question of by how much. For example, we can often tell whether a person is loving, warm and open, or whether they’re cold, closed and hostile – regardless of external behaviour. ‘Sensing an atmosphere’ is a basic form of psychic intuition. So is sensing a mother's love, or spiritual wealth.)

People with a strong faith in God or a higher force, possess a degree of psychic intuition. The less psychically attuned our consciousness, the smaller our perspective of reality, and the less we can comprehend deeper levels of reality.

Whatever our views about such issues, they are necessarily subjective, because we’re all catching brief glimpses of the Infinite Reality through the small windows of our consciousness. How deeply our consciousness might have blossomed is another question. Have you ever read about the Buddhist sutra of the Lotus Flower? It’s profound indeed.

There has been a great deal of investigation in recent years into what we refer to as consciousness

--I remember hearing about a study on moral issues, in how the brain,etc.. reacts to such decisions(sp)...i don't quite remember where i heard it, perhaps ABC??

We are creators of our own experience, and only we as individuals can judge whether our model of the world, and our own points of view, are "enlightened" or not.

Blah solipsism.

Firstly, science has revealed that energy cannot be annihilated or newly created. It can only change form. Therefore, ‘Something’ must have existed for ever. It has no beginning and no end. (This is what I refer to as “the Infinite Existence.”) Naturally, “the Infinite” transcends our finite minds, and also transcends science. But what is its ultimate nature? In other words, is everything that exists made purely of materialistic stuff that can be weighed or measured by traditional scientific methods?

I love when people take a grain of scientific truth and make fantastic leaps of delusion. Yes, it's all materialistic "stuff."

We can’t escape the fact that any conclusion must be drawn from a person's mind. Therefore, all views and conclusions are necessarily subjective.

This is entirely incorrect. The speed of light, for example, is 186,000 miles per second no matter what you might "draw from your mind."

A person with a large degree of psychic awareness, however, is like the enlightened spaceman, who had a greater perspective of reality.

And all the skeptic asks for is for these people with "large degrees" to give us some actual proof and not just new age garbage -- such as you spout in every single thing you post.

Those whose consciousness has blossomed to deeper degrees of intuition and knowledge don’t need “proof” of their convictions or beliefs.

Yes, they say the insane never question their sanity.

I can almost *smell* the nag champa when I read you.