*Recalling discussion on precognitive effect* -- 18 Apr 2001 On Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:56:29 +0100, "Liz Evans" (subject: Precognitive dreams), to alt.dreams, alt.dreams.lucid, wrote: > For those who have precognitive dreams, (mine seem to be mostly of > the earthquake/volcano variety, as in the latest one in Turkey) and > feel they will not be taken seriously or ridiculed if they talk > about it. . . . Have pen & paper by your bed and write down the > dreams that you feel strongly about as soon as you wake up, > remembering as much detail as possible, including the date and > time. THEN TELL SOMEONE ASAP; preferably a close, sensitive friend > or partner that empathises with you and doesn’t think you’re > insane. . . . Then, on Thu, 19 Aug 1999 02:12:03 -0700, "Marco McClean" offered up data for analysis and insight for proper supposing: (That just made me think of a good name for a radio show, like at 9:00 p.m. for persons having to run an errand in the car to tune into: “Insight for Supposing, with Dr. Marco McClean” -- announced in a respectfully reverent-sounding way.) > People with a brain in their head will be skeptical. Even if it > happens to them. /Especially if it happens to them/. And here's > why: > 1. There are hundreds of earthquakes, lightning storms, > mudslides, plane, train or bus crashes, and a million car crashes, > bicycle wrecks and kitchen-type accidents every day. Not to mention > all those births, bad puns and exciting near-misses. And famous > people's names are by definition known far and wide. > 2. 6,000,000,000 people (six billion people), each of which know > 1,000 famous people's names, have five dreams each night. That's > thirty billion dreams every night. > 3. Statistically, millions of those dreams every night /must/ > match up in many details events occurring elswhere that night or > soon. Dreams involving exact dates and times, exact incidents, > exact famous people's names. Color of clothing. The particular > food a person chokes on. Everything. > There's no need to drag imaginary supernormal phenomena into the > equation. . . . On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 12:03:11 GMT, Haunter@castles.com (Haunter) witlessly replied: > I would paraphrase you and add that people with a brain in their > heads will know that there are energies and interactions of > energies in this Universe greater than just those that are seen in > your own reality, Marco. To dismiss the possibility that the dream > state allowing us to perceive the more subtle energies/interactions > around us is more than just beign skeptical, it is a closing off of > one of ways of perceiving and dealing with the world around us. > Just as dreaming is used by us to integrate past experiences in > anticipation of dealing with near future situations, so too may we > be more able to transcend the limitations of time at some point to > bring important information about events before us. Granted, the > ability to recognize, let alone use, this information properly is > tenuous at best, to deny that the ability does not exist, closes, > for you and any other closed-minded individual, an additional > source of useful information that could otherwise be used to your > benefit/well-being. . . . > Skeptical, yes; dismissive, never. On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:12:46 -0700, Marco McClean (subject: Precognitive Dreams and the Repeated End of the World), characteristically in the manner as a pig-head replied: > Haunter wrote: > >> To dismiss the possibility that the dream state allowing us to >> perceive the more subtle energies/interactions around us is >> more than just beign skeptical, it is a closing off of one of >> ways of perceiving and dealing with the world around us. > > I'm not dismissing the possibility. I'm just pointing out that it's > vanishingly small. Psychic results being consistent with > statistical randomness, your own subjective experience > notwithstanding, I see no reason to jump to conclusions. Everyone > naturally /wants/ to believe in the paranormal. That's the best > reason to be skeptical. > >> Just as dreaming is used by us to integrate past experiences >> in anticipation of dealing with near future situations.... > > So where's the evidence that this is the function of dreams? And > why is it that people who believe in one system of pseudoscientific > nonsense generally seem to believe in several others. Like > astrology or Freudian (or Jungian) psychology. Or numerology. Or > Blue-Green Algae. Or the Luscher Color Test. I suspect it's mental > laziness. > I enjoy my dreams and think about them. If that's what you call > using them, then okay. I don't believe my dreams are a sort of > radio receiver for information and completed inferences not > available through my senses and my wits. People who believe they're > channeling information from outer space or from unseen spirits just > scare me-- they're clearly nuts. It's probably some sort of organic > brain damage. What will the voices tell them to do next? Pickax the > devil plumber? > >> ....so too may we be more able to transcend the limitations of >> time at some point to bring important information about events >> before us. > > I do that every time I stop and think, and remember. Very little > that happens does so for the first time. Education beats wishful > thinking. > >> ...for you and any other closed-minded individual... > > Whew. > > . . . On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 03:51:03 -0700, Marco McClean replied to a reply: > Haunter wrote: > >> Oh Marco, really, I thought we were going to have an interesting >> exchange of ideas. . . . > > . . . > > "Sheep/goat skewing" in "precog experiments." What a crock. > And what a racket the entire psychological therapy industry is. > I just looked up therapy in the phone book and there are pages and > pages of these people, each one modeling himself on a different > clique of gurus, and each one serving a clientele whose main > problem is too much money. Well, that's a problem easily solved, > isn't it. A little jargon, a little spunk water. Eye of newt. > Prozac. > The bookkeeper at a place I used to work went to a special > psychic night school to learn to fluff auras. We were talking one > day and she said that her method of psychic healing would work even > through television. That is, the patient could be surreptitiously > surveilled (as she put it) and the healer could wave his trained > healing hands over a remote monitor and "draw out the toxins > blocking the patient's energy flow. We saw a videotape about it in > class." > I smiled and said, "And you can watch this and never think, > 'That's insane. They're feeding me a line of crap.' Are there any > boys in this class? It's all girls, right? Like, you're all nuns?" > She said, "We're obviously not communicating. You're a tangled > ball of negative energy. Take off your shoes-- I'll show you > something." > I said, "I came in here for my paycheck. Shanelle, I don't > /trust/ you with my shoes." Less than a year later she had a little > girl with a friend of mine in another department. He said she told > him she was taking care of the birth control. It turned out she was > using /astrology/ for birth control, and then she tried to abort > the pregnancy with /herbs/. > Ha ha ha! The little girl they had is cute, too. She's old > enough to go to college, herself, now. Hates her father. Just hates > him. But she doesn't take psychotomimetic drugs like her mother did > at her age in psych department experiments. > Maybe it's better you use sheep and goats now in attempts to > contact the infinite. It's so easy to permanently wreck people. Ya > end up with a bunch of crosseyed goats who glow in the dark and > can't spell, who cares? On Fri, 20 Aug 1999 13:03:27 GMT, Haunter@castles.com (witless Haunter) replied to Marco: > . . . > > Your characterization of parapsychological research is wrong. Your > attempt to equate New Age beliefs with that of parapsychologists is > wrong. You've somehow allowed your bias to blind you to the actual > progress that's been made in a field that prides itself on it's > usage of the Scientific Method to study a phenomena that is > inherently difficult to bring into the laboratory. With the advent > of meta-analysis, the ever improving statistical methods that are > applied, a super-critical and self-regulating of experimental > method and protocol and similar advancememts in the fields of > physics and psychology all combine to produce a valid avenue of > research much more interesting and valid than you, evidently, want > to know. That's fine, I'm not going to attempt to change your > attitude but neither am I going to allow your prejudice to go > unanswered. . . . On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 20:00:22 GMT, ekans64@aol.com (Ekans64), in alt.dreams, wrote: >Marco McDirty wrote while on mean pills: > >> . . . > > Marco you're just *mean*. Its O.K. to have lively debates about > things but you're just down right mean. I think it would be best if > you went away from this newsgroup because you don't seem to be able > to be nice to *anybody*. > That's all I am going to say... On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 15:06:15 -0700, Marco McClean replied: > Like most truly mean people, I think I'm not mean but just > being gently playful, and I'm not going to learn better anytime > soon. . . .