That’s okay. My fault. It won’t be the first time I’ve appeared to be delusional on SDMB or probably the last.
I shouldn’t have taken you up on that particular challenge, at least not online. Since I did though, I’ll respond here. I’ve written it and dumped it four times now. I’m getting close.
You know this seemed like kind of a fun game to start with, but I shouldn’t have went there. I did though, so I’m going to dig my way out of this hole as nicely as possible. I’m going to go through various explanations for this. Some logical, some not.
-
The first one is not meant to be an insult, but it’s possible you would have agreed with whatever I said to make your cause more believable. I don’t think that’s true, but I don’t know you; so it could be.
-
I am incredibly good at reading people and made some very good guesses. I’m actually pretty comfortable with that answer.
-
There is a little bit of information about you available on the internet. After I posted my answer last night, I looked to see if I could come up with anything that would show if I was even in the ballpark. I stopped after I ran across one item, because it verified the first part of what I had posted and I was a little weirded out. I also felt like it was invading your privacy and I apologize for that. I bring this up as evidence that I could have got a little information before I sent my answer and just built on that. That isn’t true, but it would be a fairly logical argument for why this is a bunch of “hooey”. It does show the potential for how people can be fooled, lied to. It happens all the time. I am not uncomfortable with that being the answer most people pick.
-
The last is, damn I’m good.
I could give Sylvia Brown a run for her money. My personal least favorite answer. And the funniest, most absurd.
So, now what to say. Let’s see, the women in my family have been very connected and very good at this for several generations. I still consider it just being very perceptive and also lucky at guessing. As I read your posts, it seemed part of the time that you weren’t very old and going by your user name, probably male. But sometimes I got the impression that you were older. I also would have sworn at times that you were a woman, just by the way you worded things. For the record, I don’t believe our soul has more than one physical “trip”. I don’t know that it doesn’t, either. I have a very good imagination and can create a story in an instant, just by percieved impressions. What I felt from you was a strange story, but still just a fun story. Well it was fun at the time anyway, not so much anymore. You were born a girl in 1961, lived for 17 years and died suddenly, maybe an accident. You were born again in 1981 and here you are. Usually when I flash on something like that, I realize it’s crap(scuse me) and get a good laugh out of it and then forget it. I never repeat it.
Yes, I’m thinking I could be Joan of Arcadia on crack. It could be my profile signature.
I was always such a private person, until I got here. I’ll bet those antheists put a hex on me.
One of my daughters has a theory that our souls are somehow all connected together and that is why we sometimes know things that we shouldn’t. My other daughter explained the concept of eternal life to me before she was two years old. Yes, my daughters are weird too. I should have made them go to that Baptist church more. Anyway, I am sorry I brought it up. I’m not trying to make fun of you or anything. I’ll behave better in the future. Again, good luck on your trip to England.
No hole, at least as far as I’m concerned. None of what you said offended me in any way. Honest!
No need to apologize, but oooh, uhoh, what kind of info, exactly? Yahoo groups involved (cuz that’s the only legit source I can think of at the moment!) Of course I don’t want cites posted here publicly but it’d be nice to know what’s out there for just anybody to see… :eek:
Do you mean my old username, aryk29?
OMG (in a good way!) I was wondering what kind of impression I make. Good to know, and I’m not complaining!
Did you see my thread where I announced my username change? Because I announced there that I do believe. Probably shouldn’t have, but ah, what harm could it do?
Close. Girl in '58, lived almost 21 years, sudden, accident. I came to this conclusion 1 [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]2[/sub] years ago. Memories I believe to be from that time are the most pleasant ones I have. More of my favorite pop/rock music is from 1978 than any other year. Of course to you if you do not believe then it appears to be crap. That’s okay and I don’t wish to impose guilt or try to “convert”. But to me it is meaningful.
No, no, no, no, no, I’m glad you brought it up. Really! Do not feel bad about it. You told me something that I had already figured out for myself, but hadn’t told you. Behaving better has nothing to do with it.
Thanks, I’ll need it!
Apart from rolling dice, using numbers based on birthdays etc.
Unbelievable.
A million people enter a lottery weekly. A handful win - different ones each week.
And you think this is evidence of precognition? 
So you think there is a precognition ability that skips from person to person each week.
How do you distinguish this from chance? After something happens, you assume it must have been paranormal?
And what happens on weeks when nobody wins?
Is the precognition ability on holiday? :rolleyes:
It is impenetrable and solid something.
Um, can I make an offer?
You seem to think you might have a paranormal ability.
Your comments 1. and 3. above rightly raise alternative explanations.
If we did a test, this would hopefully remove 1. and 3. as explanations.
Would you like to find out if you do have an ability?
No, that was the hole I had dug for myself.
Yes. So, was the quote from Horace or are you an Enya fan? Maybe that girl lives on?
No, I mean city"boy".
Now wait, didn’t I say you sounded like a woman part of the time? You’re supposed to get mad when someone calls you a girlyboy. Okay, now I really am teasing.
I only read the top of it, right after I posted my answer. Just read the rest. Never would have imaged one little username change could be a source of such fun for people. If I would have read the whole thing before, I don’t think I would have participated.
Ah, what the hell. Still think she died in 1978, which doesn’t work. Why do you think what you do? I guess she could have been born early in '58 and died later in '78, but there should be close to a two year gap in between. Still think she was younger.
Okay, thanks.
No offense, but I think we disagree so much there’s little point arguing. But just to try to clear something up:
You think that a computer “randomly” choosing lottery numbers is demonstrating precognition. Does this mean that if I use a program to print out a 1000 sets of numbers, its more likely to pick the winning numbers?
Or by ‘precognition’ do you mean something other than what is normally meant?
Only if it’s filthy and perverted.
You’ve gotta remember glee, I think God paid me a visit too.
Then my intent was successful.
Well, I don’t think #1 is true and I’m saving #3, in case #2 falls through. #4 doesn’t hold any appeal for me.
Let me tell you a little story. A little over 13 years ago, I participated in a study. There were about 200 people involved and we did nothing but take a battery of tests for 4 days, 8 hours a day. It was sort of about personality types, but very heavy into intuitive processes, etc. Weird stuff. BTW, this group was comprised of people in healthcare and I was there because my employer (very into new age things) required it. On the last day, after they had the results tallied, we broke into groups according to the analysis done on these tests. There were 12 groups. Approximately 160 people were spread out evenly into 8 of the groups. Two more groups had about 15 each. Group #11 had about 9 people. Group #12 had one person. Guess who? In case you think I was happy about being so unique, think again. We were also required to see her (my boss’) favorite psychic. I went and was told that I was carrying too much pain in my gut, I had plenty of everything I needed, but gave to much away and that I needed to learn to put my own oxygen mask on first.(I wish I knew how to make eerie, doo,doo sounds on a keyboard). Needless to say I left that job shortly after. Okay, the only reason I’m telling you this is my personal experiences in the supposed paranormal and any kind of test setting for abilities were not a positive life experience. Anyway, talking to cityboy was kind of my own little test and it reminded me why none of that has any place in my life. So, I’ve catagorized this as kind of a little game and he seems very sweet and genuine, so I’m talking to him, but that’s it. I have learned to put on my own oxygen mask first. I think. If I change my mind, I’ll let you know. Now go play with Buzz or something.
Every “hunch”, “lucky guess”, “prediction”, etc. that has come true or passed or otherwise occured within your life is actually precognition and simultaneously proof of that same precognition- and by proxy Psychic ability (precognition is a so-called Psychic ability.) You might have guessed or intentionally made a prediction or perhaps you just had an internal premonition. It doesn’t matter. Precognition is a state, it does not require intention, awareness, or self-actualization. You can know consciously or be entirely unconscious and unknowing of a future occurence, because in both instances precognition only materializes and issues forth after the fact. It is dependent upon the “matching” of a past and future reality.
So if I throw a die 1000 times, betting on 1 each time, and am right about 1/6 of the time, are those 1/6 ‘precognition’? How about if I don’t choose the same number every time?
Sorry, I speak English, a smattering of French, and some Pig Latin, but I am not conversant in Babblespeak.
I was about to ask if I am being whooshed, but further posts of yours suggest you are serious. I can’t say you are right or wrong, since I haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
To me precognition means a state of having knowledge of an unknown future event that exists only as a potentiality. As I explained in my last post, it is not dependent on awareness of that knowledge. Simply that one contained that knowledge at a point in time and that knowledge becomes a matching reality at a future point in time. In some cases that knowledge is expressed physically (winning lottery numbers) or conceptually (a prediction of a war.) It is, however, not subject to necessary expression and could be strictly carried by one internally as a penny in the purse of thought. The knowledge is sometimes meaningless until its future condition of real occurence is met. At that point it meets the requirement of precognition and becomes significant or meaningful.
What I meant about “Computer Precognition” is that upon the generation of the winning numbers it enters into a state of precognizance- Those numbers will match a future condition.
Interesting theory, Devilsknew, but until you prove it, it is so much hot air and a waste of electrons. Got any proof that we can understand?
quote:
Originally posted by devilsknew
“Lucky guess” is extraneous and only a lingual and anthropomorphic characterization of the reality of the precognition of a future ocurrence in time. Precognition doesn’t require intent.
I hope this is more clear:
“Lucky guess” doesn’t exist outside of human concept and language. It is not relevant to the reality of the matter. The reality is that there is only precognition of the future event.
Precognition is not dependant on a conscious intention, such as guessing.
Absolute, definitive proof of Psychic ability!
Every lottery winner is a Psychic, demonstrable by his/her predicted winning numbers- The winning ticket. There are thousands, maybe even millions, of instances of precognition in proof, through lottery winners everyday. Every lottery winner very literally had foreknowledge and precognition of a future occurence.
Full circle, this is the proof.
There’s a phony “Psychic School” in town here.
The police and newspapers have been trying to shut them down for years, but nobody can prove they scam their customers, since everything is billed as “class” or “counseling”.
Of course we all have been warned not to trust them with forcasts or speaking to beloved deceased, but I’m positive they sucker many people that way. They have “donation” and “endowment” programs as well, so they have learned to mainstream scamming the gullible.
Not that it’s any different than churches, in my view.
It is really simple what I am trying to get across. Every single instance of a winning lottery number is proof of precognition.
A man chooses his lottery numbers at the local store, his only real intention and hope is to win. He may know that he is going to win, have a hunch, make a guess, think he doesn’t have a chance in hell…whatever…it doesn’t matter- The numbers are to be the winning numbers at a future point in time. He, at that moment and by his very choices and comission of the winning numbers, exhibited beforehand knowledge of the outcome of a future event -the drawing of those same numbers. By my definition, this precognition (the knowledge of the winning numbers), paradoxically, cannot become precognition until after the reality of the future event (the drawing of the winning numbers).
Well, devilsknew, the skeptics here acted confused about what you were trying to convey, because using the fact that someone wins the lottery, to be your proof of precognition, is such a bizarre idea that no one could think you’d actually be trying to say that.
So let’s take a shot at disabusing you of this idea. Suppose that the power for this precognition were turned off for a day. You still would have millions of people buying lottery tickets, and it would be very likely, just by simple rules of chance, that someone would win, without precog. So how is this scenario different from your version?
And if people can use procognition to select a winning combination, wouldn’t you expect that a winning ticket would be selected at somewhat more than the rate expected by chance alone (which is one in 16 million for the common lottery)? That should be easy to show with publically published lottery stats. I strongly expect that we will find that only about one in 16 million tickets is a big prize winner. Would this falsify your idea?
All lottery wins are chance. That doesn’t change the fact that the chance winner had precognition of the chance winning numbers by the very act of choosing some chance numbers. It seems that you can’t turn precognition off (and still have a lottery winner).
I think you misunderstand my concept of precognition as presented here, my ideas don’t accomadate its “use” to change probability. It just *is[/]. - all within the regular scheme of things.