When we are lucky enough to personally come across a dream that has "come true" we are filled with excitement, and that is understandable. From the point of view of the individual, this is a real miracle. But if we look at the broader picture, we will understand how much such an "amazing" event is actually expected, and even bound by reality.
History is studded with amazing stories about prophetic dreams.
It is possible that some of you personally know someone who had a dream that "came true", or even had the privilege of your dream being revealed in retrospect as "prophetic".
One of the most quoted stories in this context is the story about Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States (1809 - 1865): one morning the president told his best friend (and his bodyguard) that he had a nightmare, in which he felt "paralysis of death" and heard sobs coming from the floor White House basement. After searching for the source of the voices he came to the east room and saw a body wrapped in burial clothes and mourners gathered around. When he asked who the dead man was, he was told that it was the president, and that he had been assassinated.
Two weeks later, Lincoln and his wife went to see a play at Ford's Theater in Washington. Shortly after the beginning of the play, Lincoln was shot to death by an assassin!
Amazing, isn't it? We will return to this story later.
Is it really necessary to assume the operation of prophetic forces to explain the phenomenon of "come true" dreams, or are there simpler explanations that a little sharp thinking (and relevant knowledge) can provide?
We will review the issue from several angles:
The amount of relevant dreams: A person dreams an average number of dreams each night. A simple estimate shows that during our lifetime each of us dreams about 100,000 dreams, many of them about unpleasant incidents, disasters, accidents, etc. People close to us are often involved in the dream.
The number of relevant events: Every day there are many events that we hear about in the media or experience personally. Public events, natural disasters, people who are harmed in one way or another and even relatively small events such as "a car hitting the neighbor's fence" or "a burn on the hand" - all of these are worthy candidates to be prophesied, aren't they?
Ambiguous definitions: How precise does the match between a dream and an event have to be for a dream to be considered prophetic? If we dreamed that a relative was killed in a car accident and a few days later we learned that that relative suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized in moderate condition, would this be considered a prophetic dream or not? If we dreamed of falling off a cliff and two weeks later we slipped and broke our hand - was it a prophetic dream? Of course, the definitions of time are also not clear - what is the period of time that should pass between a dream and a similar event, in order toNot Shall we consider the dream prophetic? week? a month? sleep? "Thanks to" vague definitions, we enormously increase the amount of possible matches between a dream and an event that will happen in the future, thereby greatly increasing the chances that a dream will meet the definition of a "prophetic dream".
selective recall: the amount of dreams we dream And do not coming true is huge. We don't notice them of course. On the other hand, any match, even a slight one, will immediately arouse our attention. This is the way the human mind works. Already around 1600, the English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon said: "The root of superstition lies in the fact that man notices good deeds but not sins, and stores in his memory the cases of the first type and forgets the cases of the second type." In the case of dreams, the effect is even stronger, because even if we record in a diary all the dreams we remember, most dreams will remain inaccessible to our awareness if some external event does not occur to remind us of them.
retroactive adjustment: in any case of recollection in a dream after the that the event to which he refers has already happened (this is the case in most cases where a "prophetic dream" is reported), there is a danger of Changing the original memory. Information we received about the event that took place affects and mixes with details we remember from the dream. This is a well-known feature of human memory that has been demonstrated in many studies (things come to me so that people can be implanted with memories of events that did not happen to them at all, but will still be remembered as a personal experience).
Of course, a person who believes (or wants to believe) in the "prophetic powers", will interpret more and more details in the dream so that they fit the event that took place. If, for example, a peacock also appeared in a dream about a car accident, while in the actual accident no peacock was seen in the field, one can look for forced matches: perhaps a peacock (or another large bird) appeared on a billboard in the area of the accident, or on the shirt of one of the people involved in the accident, or on the cover of A book the victim recently read, etc. When you know in retrospect what you are looking for, it is very easy to find matches. (All Nostradamus prophecies are actually built on this principle: none of the prophecies were useful to warn in advanced about an event. The adjustments were always made behind - After an event happened, prophecies were found that can be interpreted with reference to it).
How rare then is a case in which one of the tens of thousands of dreams that a person is able to recall in his lifetime will correspond to one of the tens of thousands of different events that wash over our lives? You can try to estimate the chance that a certain person will experience a prophetic dream of an "amazing" degree during his lifetime. The numbers obviously depend on how "amazing" we are looking for. Let's assume for a moment a slim chance of 1:1000 that a person a certain He will experience an incredible prophetic dream - literally during his lifetime. Regarding a certain person, the chance sounds small, but here we come to the next critical issue.
The amount of relevant dreamers: We don't live alone. We may not experience an "amazing" prophetic dream personally, but we will be impressed even if one of our acquaintances tells us about it, or even if we read about it in the newspaper. There are about 50 million inhabitants in England, about 300 million in the USA, that is, during a person's life about 50,000 cases of an amazing prophetic dream will occur in England alone, and about 300,000 in the USA. When you see these numbers, it's surprising that we don't hear about יותר Cases of prophetic dreams!
This is the "law of really big numbers" that we know from the lotteries - although the chance of winning the lottery is one in several millions, and despite that, almost every week there is a winner, and this is because millions participate in each lottery. The chance that one event any will occur, out of Lots For very unlikely events, it is extremely high.
From the point of view of the lottery winner it may be a miracle, but from the point of view of the lottery organizers and other residents of the country, it was only expected Someone will win this week as well.
Preliminary signs: Sometimes the prophecy is not as surprising as it seems to an outside observer who is not privy to the details of the event. Many amazing anecdotes lose their power when it turns out that there were preliminary signs of the event, which were known to the dreamer. Sometimes we, the potential dreamers, are not even fully aware of these signs. for example:
During a visit to the beloved uncle, we may have noticed pallor, lack of vitality, dark circles around the eyes or any other sign that would turn on a red light at a doctor. The next day we dreamed that he had a serious illness and two weeks later it turned out to us that we were right. Was the dream prophetic?
It is possible that there were talks about the lack of safety of a certain bridge for pedestrians. Many people are disturbed by the matter, some parents asked their children not to cross the bridge and one day there was even a local demonstration demanding that the bridge be rebuilt. And here, one day a disaster happens, the bridge collapses and several people are killed. How surprised we will be now If we learn that not one, but three different parents dreamed of a bridge collapsing and their loved ones being hurt, in the months leading up to the event? Very quickly the mentions of all those warnings and concerns will disappear from the pages of history, and only the anecdote about the "prophetic" dream that came true will remain.
We will now return to the dream of Lincoln's assassination. This story can be found in any book that tries to glorify the seemingly supernatural powers of dreams. But in most cases readers don't get the full picture. Joe Nickel, detective, magician, teacher, book writer and member of various skeptic associations decided check the issue more deeply. When he checked the memoirs of the same friend to whom Lincoln told about the dream, it turned out that after the friend heard the story of the dream and expressed his concern about the matter, the president reassured him that it was not him but another person Killed in his dream, that is, it was another president.
Beyond that, Lincoln had every reason to fear assassination. He was warned many times about assassination attempts (the first attempt was thwarted immediately after his first coronation), he received several letters threatening his life, and once his hat was even pierced by a bullet from a person who tried to assassinate him. With such a background, a dream about an assassination does not seem so surprising.
In conclusion, when we are lucky enough to personally come across a dream that has "come true" we are filled with excitement, and that is understandable. From the point of view of the individual, this is a real miracle. But if we look at the broader picture, we will understand how much such an "amazing" event is actually expected, and even bound by reality.
Note: In the entire discussion above, I of course ignored cases of wild imagination, exaggerations, unsubstantiated rumors, urban legends and even deliberate deceptions, cases that unfortunately we come across quite often, especially as we approach the realms of the "supernatural" - realms in which self-deception on the one hand, and the pursuit of ego, greed And advertising, on the other hand, plays, it seems, a decisive role.
96 תגובות
the other self
I'm really trying to figure out what it's like to be the other me. I grew up on miracle stories.
God was my first home visitor.
All mankind lived like this in the past. Most of them to this day swear by another.
You are not the other, you are like everyone else actually. Holds opinions as if there is another, consciously, and is ready to swear on it.
Science has recently begun to understand what is different and there is another.
The thought of a mass with a speed limited to the speed of light, will probably be disproved, and will give a true meaning of what else.
Imagine in a physical sense that there is something moving faster than the speed of light. This is the meaning of the other.
Is this the meaning you are aiming for?
Hi Michael. The part with Uri Geller is a great classic, but I didn't know the second video - strong!
I started reading "The God Impulse" - interesting.
Another cheater who was exposed (more correctly - admitted it himself):
"My point was to show how stupid people are"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yDLRib5CQ
And another piece about Randy Wegler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9w7jHYriFo&mode=related&search=
See an example of a natural phenomenon that illustrates the nature of people who claim the existence of supernatural phenomena:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMZeJVqAu3E&feature=related
By the way, the other me:
A meta-study can only statistically examine the significance of the results obtained in other studies when its starting point is that the studies it summarizes were performed correctly.
When there is not a single study that was both performed correctly and gave positive results, it is not clear what that meta-study is based on.
Regarding the experiments with tiny chances of bias (such as a bias of 50.02 percent in a certain direction and all), it is possible that there is a bias because old random number generators were not accurate.
The other self:
What do you want me to say about the study?
Did you introduce him?!
So someone said he investigated. Big deal! The fact is that no expert takes the research seriously and the fact is that no one took the prizes.
Honey
Militant language again. This time: "reprimanding".
I guess you like metaphors, so here's one: We're like two checkers playing on the same board, but each on squares of their own color.
jubilee,
If you have something specific and reasoned to say about the statements or reasons I gave above, please come.
Beyond that, you did not contribute to the discussion except to return to the tactic of casting blame and this time you made it personal.
I ended up with this discussion.
May you all have a wonderful Saturday.
The other me! What are these militant words, "barricade", "ego", "prestige", "money"...?
It's not relevant at all. The thing is, you don't speak the same language that I (and a few others here) speak. It's the language of science, and you just don't seem to be fully versed in it. I, in your place, would try to study it instead of making announcements. Although it is a rather limited language, you can do a lot with it.
monument,
Your parallel is incorrect. We are not talking about interesting cases within the 500 shots that came out one way or another. For that matter, if I try to correct your equation - by throwing 800 different coins, each of which is tossed 500 times - we will find that there are coins whose results are beyond statistics. These coins (these subjects in the experiment) are in question.
Wouldn't you like to check in this case why some coins gave non-statistical results?
The letter A in the name of the PEAR project represents the word Anomalies - and this is actually the goal - to isolate the anomalies and investigate them. Obviously, if you take a sample the size of the human population (the largest possible) you will get almost completely statistical results because if it were otherwise, these abilities would be common in the population and we would not need studies.
Hyman himself testifies that one female subject was responsible for 23% of the anomalies in the database, but dismisses this by saying that the overall statistical result is negligible. His claims are populist and demagogic in my opinion and T. is not.
If that's what the skeptics base their skepticism about these abilities on, then I can see why Randy kept his money.
Although the PEAR project is closed, it continues in a different and broader format here: http://www.icrl.org/ and aims to check for anomalies.
Despite all that has been said - it is clear to me that none of us will convince the other. In my opinion, there are too many question marks here to close the issue with nothing, you remain unfazed because you think that other laboratories were not able to reproduce the experiment, in my opinion this is not true, but I really don't have time to continue digging anymore and I don't think there is any point, because it is clear I believe that no experiment I give here will convince the skeptics.
And for the record, even in our little discussion here - every time I gave an example to refute your arguments, you changed tactics. You went from arguments of blaming the people who did these experiments (they are not scientists, but frauds and charlatans) to arguments of quality (the research was not done according to scientific standards) to arguments of quantity (the statistics are not clear).
Someone once said that you will never be able to convince someone whose job it is to doubt. Or for that matter, his prestige or money or the integrity of his ego is in doubt. According to my impression, you have more openness than most people I've had the chance to talk to about these issues, but since the mainstream scientific "sentiment" is as it is, and apparently all kosher means are on the way to being refuted, it will take time for us to meet in the middle.
We will probably stay on both sides of the fence for now.
a great weekend.
the other me
Your argument is wrong.
It's just like saying that within 1000 tosses of a coin, 500 of which came out "wood" and 500 came out "flies", the interesting cases are hidden - those 500 cases that came out "wood" for example.
The whole idea of statistics is to count all the cases.
In the same spirit, exactly if we omit only a few cases of "peli" with such and such excuses, or without excuses, we will get 500 cases of "tree" and only 495 cases of "peli" and what a wonder! A deviation of 1% in favor of "tree" - and this is more than the effect discovered in studies for PEAR...
And regarding the claim that there may have been some subjects who influenced more than others - after all, I addressed it in the last long response, didn't you read? Ray Hyman claimed that
And one was responsible for 23% of the total database. Her hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%.
whereas the PEAR researchers denied.
That is,
If this is true - why didn't they focus only on him and show more amazing data?
And if you believe them and it's not true, then there are no people in their sample who had special abilities.
That is, your hypothesis that there were such - is not correct.
By the way, they stopped testing specific people a long time ago, probably because all those who claimed extraordinary abilities, ones that can be distinguished without huge statistics - turned out to be charlatans.
Obviously, the PEAR team continued to investigate despite the negligible results. This is the life work of several people.
By the way, the lab was closed in 2007.
"For 28 years, we've done what we wanted to do, and there's no reason to stay and generate more of the same data," said the laboratory's founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton's engineering school and an emeritus professor "If people don't believe us after all the results we've produced, then they never will."
I was not convinced. Especially when other laboratories failed to repeat the results.
All the discussion around the topic of the article, or telepathy is circumstantial, and as far as I know there is no discussion and research of the actual cases. Science needs reproducible objects, and the telepathic and dream reports are completely coincidental, and no measurements were ever made on people at the time of the alleged event. On the other hand, of all the evidence, there are some strong evidences, which no statistical study of the type cited here can deny, and anyone who argues strongly against any possibility of telepathy or a dream case must deal with the strong reports, and he is allowed to ignore most of the reports. This is similar to the issue of the UFOs, which even in the vast body of evidence about them there are some strong evidences, such as the testimony of the American pilot who in 1947 coined the phrase flying saucers, an excellent technical person and completely competent, and other strong evidences.
Dismissing evidence based on circumstantial claims that are not directly related to the evidence like the current article, is not helpful for understanding the phenomena, and it seems to me to be a method of organizing and silencing the writer himself.
It's nice - to take a huge sample and say that the results are "negligible". The interesting findings are hidden within these results. Probably not for all the subjects it can affect the machine, but there are some who did have an effect beyond statistics and they are the ones who are interesting in this field. After all, the more you increase the sample, the more negligible the results will be, otherwise we would see distinct abilities of this type clearly in the entire population.
As for the anomalies they do continue to investigate, you can see here:
A number of secondary correlations revealed other anomalous structural features within these human/machine databases. In many instances, the effects appeared to be operator-specific in their details and the results of given operators on widely different machines frequently tended to be similar in character and scale. Pairs of operators with shared intentions were found to induce further anomalies in the experimental outputs, especially when the two individuals shared an emotional bond. The data also displayed significant disparities between female and male operator performances, and consistent series position effects were observed in individual and collective results. These anomalies were demonstrated with the operators located up to thousands of miles from the laboratory, exerting their efforts many hours before or after the actual operation of the devices.
This article and many others describing the studies and their results can be found here: http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/experiments.html.
The Pear team continues to investigate the matter despite the results that seem to the skeptics to be "negligible". This is a team of respected scientists from Princeton who have been working on the matter for 28 years.
again,
The PEAR team are the successors of Helmut Schmidt. Here is a summary of their findings, clarifications and criticisms. More complete information can be read in the attached links.
http://www.skepdic.com/pear.html
http://www.skepdic.com/essays/psihistory.html
Radin thinks the PEAR group replicated Schmidt's work in 258 experimental studies and 127 control studies. CEM Hansel examined the studies done after 1969 and before 1987 that attempted to replicate Schmidt's work. He notes: "The main fact that emerges from this data is that 71 experiments gave a result supporting Schmidt's findings and 261 experiments failed to do so" (Hansel 1989: 185). That is the beauty of meta-analysis: you can transform a failure rate of nearly 4 to 1 into a grand success.
In 1987, Dean Radin and Nelson did a meta-analysis of all RNG experiments done between 1959 and 1987 and found that they produced odds against chance beyond a trillion to one (Radin 1997: 140). This sounds impressive, but as Radin says "in terms of a 50% hit rate, the overall experimental effect, calculated per study, was about 51 percent, where 50 percent would be expected by chance" [emphasis added] (141). A couple of sentences later, Radin gives a more precise rendering of "about 51 percent" by noting that the overall effect was "just under 51 percent."
However, according to Ray Hyman, "the percentage of hits in the intended direction was only 50.02%" in the PEAR studies (Hyman 1989: 152). And one 'operator' (the term used to describe the subjects in these studies) was responsible for 23% of the total data base. Her hit rate was 50.05%. Take out this operator and the hit rate becomes 50.01%. According to John McCrone, "Operator 10," believed to be a PEAR staff member, "has been involved in 15% of the 14 million trials, yet contributed to a full half of the total excess hits" (McCrone 1994). According to Dean Radin, the criticism that there "was any one person responsible for the overall results of the experiment...was tested and found to be groundless" (Radin 1997: 221). His source for this claim is a 1991 article by Jahn et al. in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, "Count population profiles in engineering anomalies experiments" (5:205-32). However, Jahn gives the data for his experiments in Margins of Reality: The Role of Consciousness in the Physical World (Harcourt Brace, 1988, p. 352-353). McCrone has done the calculations and found that 'If [operator 10's] figures are taken out of the data pool, scoring in the "low intention" condition falls to chance while "high intention" scoring drops close to the .05 boundary considered weakly significant in scientific results.”
According to McCrone, the "size of the effect is about .1 percent, meaning that for every thousand electronic tosses, the random event generator is producing about one more head or tail than it should by chance alone" (McCrone 1994).
Furthermore, Stanley Jeffers, a physicist at York University, Ontario, has repeated the Jahn experiments but with chance results (Alcock 2003: 135-152). (See "Physics and Claims for Anomalous Effects Related to Consciousness" in Alcock et al. 2003. Abstract.) And Jahn et al. failed to replicate the PEAR results in experiments done in Germany (See "Mind/Machine Interaction Consortium: PortREG Replication Experiments," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 499–555, 2000).
I didn't understand which Wikipedia article you were referring to.
Don't be quick to dismiss based on personality after all his research was peer reviewed right? 800 studies that reproduced similar results.
You wanted research, you got a lot. And not Schmidt's but those who repeated it in 68 laboratories.
Can you cite a specific rebuttal to these studies?
The other self:
If this person is supposed to be an example of what is in the book then it is clear why the Wikipedia article dealing with the subject ignores him.
All the evidence comes from the believers and not from academia.
I remember one name from the book - Helmut Schmidt, this is what is written about him on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Schmidt_(parapsychologist)#cite_ref-2
His experiment that is described in Bashda is related to the random generators. According to my understanding, this line refers to an experiment that was repeated on a larger scale - 68 laboratories:
A metastudy that reviewed more than 800 such studies from 68 laboratories came to the conclusion that "under certain circumstances, consciousness can interact with random physical systems." [3]
The other self:
And I said that from the context I know that even if it is written in the book that it has undergone peer review, in reality - and according to what is described in Wikipedia - this is not the case.
Michael,
I said I wouldn't mince words.
The book is about scientific studies that were reproduced by colleagues under strict conditions. You can disagree with the conclusions that emerge from the facts, but as far as I know, the studies met all scientific standards. At least I haven't seen any specific rebuttals.
I borrowed the book, so I will not be able to open it and quote you the names of the researchers and studies.
I didn't ask you to study for a few years, just read a book, go to the library and browse it if you don't want to spend money.
You don't want to waste your time, don't read. It seems to me that it is unnecessary to argue beyond that.
The other self:
I didn't mince words. I simply said that from the other contexts it is clear to me that the book does not represent research done according to the normal procedure of science, one of the cornerstones of which is peer review.
After all, anyone can suggest that I read the fibrucks he wrote, and this is a perfect way to waste my time.
Even the religious people tell me that before I study religious studies for a few years there is no chance that I will understand them.
They are right, of course. I will not understand them without studying a few years of religious studies.
They are just wrong in what they are trying to imply and that I will understand them after studying nonsense for a few years when the truth is that I will never understand them - whether I waste my time or not.
If you point to a scientific study on the matter I will be ready to read it but it is clear to me that you will not do so because the only scientific studies that were carried out while observing everything that should be observed gave negative results.
Michael,
have you read the book Why don't you read and draw your own conclusions, after all, everything I write here will not convince you, so why use so many words?
If you don't want to read, don't read, but please don't bring up the Holocaust - we both know there is no parallel here.
The other self:
The problem is that the claims to one of the "here" stem from interests and not facts.
Having someone claim something does not legitimize the claim.
There are also people who claim that there was no holocaust.
The other self:
Where is your information about the "cleaning" of the experiments?
Why doesn't the scientific community draw the conclusions?
Why aren't his authors getting all the millions promised by Randy and others to those who demonstrate this kind of thing?
Everything is possible, and some studies may be biased (to both sides).
Regarding what is described in the field book - these are very "clean" experiments, if you are already in the subject, maybe you should read - this is very interesting Libra language.
I did not find it translated into Hebrew even though I know it exists. Here it is in English:
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Quest-Secret-Force-Universe/dp/0060931175
I just want to sharpen again the point of the size of the effect, compared to its "statistical significance".
"Thanks" to these and other systematic biases, one can easily reach a situation where a finding is statistically very significant, but its magnitude is zero.
For example, an unbalanced drop coin, which falls 51% of the time on one side, and only 49% on the other, if we toss it millions of times we will get a statistically significant finding at insane levels, even though the size of the effect will remain a 1% bias from what is expected from a balanced coin.
It is easy to reach statistically significant results, for example by a slight degree of selective advertising, or the omission of parts of experiments that are called "warming up" in retrospect (if the success in them was a little less than expected by chance). And I'm not talking in the air. Such phenomena were common in parapsychological research. Seemingly only very slight caresses to the results, but if you do it enough, and especially when you perform a meta-analysis on many such "caressed" results, you get a very small, but statistically insanely significant bias.
I have not read the book, and I do not know what is written in it - just material for attention.
Michael,
Speaking of coin flips, have you also read the book "The Field"? There is a list of studies that meet scientific standards that were done with real random generators and as you can see (if you read) the results in the experiments that tested cognitive influence came out very biased, far beyond random (and even forward in time).
Since it is clear to me that we are on both sides of the fence (it's fine, it's much more interesting that way, as long as we don't play insults), and since I am indeed different, allow me to reinforce what you wrote on my behalf and repeat and say:
*** Since there are claims here and there, the matter has not yet been decided ***
Thanks, Gilad.
I saved the link
Thanks Michael, I ordered the book you recommended within 10 minutes 🙂 By the way, you can get it at a much cheaper price than on Amazon, on this site, and without shipping fees. You should know:
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/God-Impulse-Kevin-Nelson/9781847378316
Gilad (https://www.hayadan.org.il/do-dreams-come-true-0812113/#comment-322176):
I have read Wiseman's book and even recommended it on several occasions over the pages of this site.
I recommended him even though he is quite shallow and overlapping in my opinion because in general - what he says was suitable as an answer to some of the delusions.
What he claims here - as if remote viewing has passed standard scientific tests is not true and others disagree with his claim.
In fact - if you make sure to read all the quotes from speakers, it will become clear that he does not agree with you either.
He is probably only talking about the statistical aspects without referring to the tricks and he says this explicitly (as he was careful not to quote):
Wiseman also pointed out several problems with one of the early experiments at SAIC, like information leakage. However, he indicated the importance of its process-oriented approach and of its refining of remote viewing methodology, which meant that researchers replicating their work could avoid these problems.[1] Wiseman later insisted there were multiple opportunities for participants on that experiment to be influenced by inadvertent cues and that these cues can influence the results when they appear.[11]
And this is exactly the trick thing I was talking about!
It is very nice to present statistics that stand the test and ignore the fact that you are being cheated!
The fact is that when Randy performed the experiments without leaving an opening for cheating the results were not reproduced.
YouTube is full of films in which Randy explains how the various frauds of Uri Geller and his ilk were carried out (including footage of Geller shows with a hidden camera).
Gilad (https://www.hayadan.org.il/do-dreams-come-true-0812113/#comment-322181):
I wonder how it is that Uri Geller did not predict the results of the trial 🙂
The argument of the New Age people as if the fact that "the question is still open despite all the years that have passed" is a truly idiotic argument.
They have never been able to show that it works, but there are those who insist on continuing to test because it is difficult to give up the magic, so they continue to test it.
If I claimed that when a fair coin is tossed, most of the tosses come out as "trees" and a minority of them are "flies" I could easily bring several "studies" where this was realized.
You would rightly come and show me conflicting studies.
I (if I were different) would say that since there are claims here and there the matter has not yet been decided.
In relation to OBE and NDE:
The book that I have mentioned many times, The God Impulse, describes in a very reliable way some of the mechanisms that cause the phenomena.
It's all in the mind and there's nothing mysterious here.
The topics of lucid dreams, sleep paralysis and more or less everything that came up in the discussion are also mentioned and explained.
monument,
Can you briefly state the differences measured in brain activity in each of the phenomena? It is very interesting. It could be that they are really different creatures but have similar phenomena in terms of perception (cognition?).
Lucid dreams and OBEs are very different in the brain activity that occurs during each. I read about it in Susan Blackmore's book, but you can also find reference to it on Wikipedia as far as I remember.
It is very possible that there are common elements, both are special states of consciousness, but not successive stages or anything directly related.
Sleep paralysis is a different creature as well. There, too, it is more or less known what happens in the brain in the process.
An OBE can occur proactively by certain people (as the other self pointed out) and while awake, and the measured brainwaves are different from those that occur during Lucid Dreams as mentioned.
Absolutely fascinating field.
And of course there are trips of hallucinogenic drugs. Another honorary member of the family.
The thought that the dream is a side effect of sleep,
Amazingly similar to the thought that the imagination is a side effect of awakening...
Regarding sleep paralysis and lucid dreams (lucid dreaming?) there are those who refer to this as different stages in leaving the body (OBE). In the book Adventures Beyond the Body, the author writes about other phenomena that can happen during the out-of-body phase beyond sleep paralysis, tremors, loud noises, a sound that resembles a gunshot, etc.
I myself experienced the tremors and even the beginning of leaving the body which manifested itself in a change of perspective of the gaze, even though the body remained lying down - extremely strange.
One of the methods to practice leaving the body is to try to be conscious in the dream and then navigate it as you wish. I remember that Carlos Castaneda described a method to do this (which is very similar to what R.H. Rafa.im described) in the book "The Sleep of Don Juan" - something like trying to find the hands in a dream.
Lucid dreaming is considered an out-of-body experience according to my understanding and it includes a "realistic" feeling that involves several senses.
Link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Beyond-Body-Out-Body/dp/0062513710
Link to the movie website
http://www.zenit.to.it/eng/prod_doc_enigma-del-sonno.html
I didn't check if you can watch or not
The popular opinion is that a person cannot live without dreaming, however about 9 years ago an Italian company named
ZENIT produced a film called THE ENIGMA OF SLEEPING, in which several international sleep research experts participated, including Professor Peretz Lavi (currently president of the Technion) who recruited two Israelis: me - on the topic of narcolepsy
And another Israeli named Jubilee who in the Yom Kippur war was shot in the head and the bullet hit the center of the dream as well and since then he has not
A dreamer (seemingly an impossible situation) and the strangest of all participated in the film by a 45-year-old guy (Swedish if I'm not mistaken) who comes from a family with a unique genetic defect, not all of them suffer from it, but in a considerable percentage, they don't sleep at all and most of them don't reach the age of 40. In any case, the guy in question was already completely unstable, but in his life he was a strong man, he even worked until almost the forties and all this without sleeping a single minute in his life!!!! How strange!!!
Aryeh Seter
I think it would be more correct to say that the dream is a function of sleep. Sleep is designed to concentrate the energy of an organism to 'set the system' for normal activity. Like for example the secretion of certain substances into the body that help the body to grow or improve its function. Among other things, sleep also affects the arrangement of memory.
But the dream itself is a kind of side effect of all these processes. Since almost all body systems are paralyzed, most of the energy is concentrated in the brain, so it is also likely that the side effects of that energy will be in that area. At least so in my opinion.
Gilad, R. H. Rafim. On the subject of dream prevention, personal information (studies at the academy) - indeed, dream prevention has effects as you described. Beyond that - when the poor guy is finally allowed to sleep, he seems to make up for the lack of dreaming by dreaming at a significantly higher percentage than this time of year. These things indicate that the dream does indeed have an important functionality. One of the opinions regarding the functionality of the dream - organization and arrangement in the memory of everything experienced while awake and the dream is a side effect of this activity.
Regarding the 'sleep states' such as REM. You should also learn about the brain waves that are generated during the transition from awakening to sleep and vice versa.
monument
"As far as I know, if a person is systematically deprived of the dreaming phase (for example in experiments in a sleep laboratory), he begins to hallucinate while awake, and his condition may deteriorate to the point of losing his sanity." - This phenomenon is also familiar to me, but only from what I saw on TV, so I have nothing to add but only agree with your claim.
On the other hand, you'll know if the patient lost his sanity because he wasn't dreaming and started hallucinating, or because he wasn't allowed to sleep long enough each time 🙂
Okay, there's a lot of material here. As expected, things are still unclear, and many aspects are controversial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_eye_movement_sleep
As far as I know, if a person is systematically deprived of the dreaming phase (for example in experiments in a sleep laboratory), he begins to hallucinate while awake, and his condition may deteriorate to the point of losing sanity.
I don't have a reference for this at the moment, if anyone knows, please.
If this is the case, it is difficult to define dreams as "the Louis phenomenon of sleep and as worthless"...
jubilee
I think you're wrong.
Sleep is for 'recharging the batteries', the dreams are side effects of sleep and do not have much value.
Gilad, Chen
First of all, I would like to point out that I am not an expert in the field and hardly deal with the subject, but only bring private arguments from personal experience. In my previous response I didn't want to write too much so as not to complicate matters, but I see that you understood exactly what I was talking about. The phenomenon is indeed called lucid dreaming and it has several degrees, as far as I know.
Grace
It's really hard to 'control' the dream, and regarding what you wrote: "But I wasn't really able to control the dream for a long time, because it seems to require mental effort." So here too you are right, because, at least in my opinion, as soon as you become aware that you are dreaming, during the dream, then the thinking itself, i.e. everything that happens in the dream, changes.
The trick is to concentrate as soon as you realize that you are dreaming, the next time you dream and for a moment you will be aware that you are dreaming, instead of thinking directly about eccentric things try to concentrate on moving your hand in some way, or trying to say something, or scratching your scalp. From my experience I discovered that the more I concentrated on being aware of myself at that particular moment, the environment that changed became an environment I was familiar with from reality (that is, realistic) and then it was easier for me to combine being aware of myself and the fact that I was dreaming and being aware of my environment and my ability to manipulate the environment while dreaming for a longer time . (Because the brain didn't have to make an effort to "invent" the environment but simply pulled it from memory).
monument
Regarding "sleep paralysis" - I happened to experience such an event several times. listen…. A very interesting experience 🙂
The transition between dreaming and complete wakefulness, during 'sleep paralysis', involves almost no change in the consciousness of the dreamer himself. That is, the dreamer is aware that he is dreaming and also aware of what is happening around him in the dream, and then suddenly, the dreamer becomes aware of what is in front of him and that he is actually waking up from the dream. Because the body is paralyzed during sleep, the dreamer cannot move and all the changes that occur are quasi-visual (also the 'perspective' is a bit illusory) and does not harm the dreamer's consciousness almost at all.
Or in other words, the dreamer is aware that he dreamed (and also remembers what he dreamed for a short moment) and a moment later is suddenly aware that he opens his eyes, sees what is in front of him, understands where he is and that he woke up from a dream, but cannot do anything because the body is paralyzed (except from the eyes and the ability to see). Such an experience can scare some people 🙂
As one who has had lucid dreams several times a day for the past 21 years due to narcolepsy
I will testify that it is possible to control a dream much, much more than it is possible to control reality, the narcoleptic sleep is very light and not deep and a strange state of consciousness is created in me that not only do I dream but I know and hear and live
the reality at that moment - and an interesting combination is created.
R.H. Ghosts what you describe is a lucid dream.
I think I did experience it, because I remember times in a dream that I realized I was dreaming, and then I took advantage of the matter to do whatever came to my mind, such as flying.
But I couldn't really control the dream for a long time, because it seems to require effort
I thought
And the truth despite the feeling, it is very possible that this is simply a dream that I dreamed as a result of reading about a lucid dream, and it is interesting that the article mentioned that you can fly, and the first thing I tried was to fly.
Although in terms of feeling, it feels like I was the one who controlled the dream, because I feel like I was really thinking, instead of being a bystander as usual (even if it's from the first person).
But then again it could be part of the dream.
It is indeed an interesting issue to raise a ghost moon.
knowledge,
I am not an expert in matters of special states of consciousness, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me regarding your claim that "sleep paralysis is simply an introduction to directed dreaming. It can be neutralized and you don't have to make a big deal out of it."
Regarding onion layers, etc. -
A) I hastened to clarify here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/do-dreams-come-true-0812113/#comment-322116
b) I would love to hear about evidence regarding predicting the future through dreams. Please send links and I promise to review them in the future.
You said very general and vague things that do not allow any reference.
A.
Sleep paralysis - just an introduction to directed dreaming.
It can be neutralized and you don't need to make a big deal out of it.
B. To the author of the article - you jumped into the subject
And you immediately drew conclusions and already have positions without it
To really examine things, it's not scientific work but that's okay.
If you have courage - then think about onions.
The onion is made of scabs and scabs
Currently only in the first layer.
I can assure you that if you want it you will find it
Layers that currently sound meaningless or illogical to you,
When in fact they are just waiting for a scientist to "discover" and characterize them.
Good Day.
R.H. Refai.m. Hello, you are describing a certain level of Lucid Dream.
A chapter was devoted to this in a book dealing with OBEs that I read recently.
The phenomenon is known, documented, and "real", and I realized that it is also possible to practice and improve it.
Regarding the OBE experience - it is an experience. That is, as an experience it is completely real. What is really going on there is a much more complicated story. I am studying the subject at the moment. There are many interesting theories and experiments, as well as urban legends and religious agendas.
There are other special situations that involve dreaming and waking, for example "sleep paralysis", this certainly does not indicate schizophrenia. Many sane people experience this (the not-so-common statistics on the matter say that one in five or so has probably experienced it at least once in their life to some degree).
I addressed it here: http://wp.me/p1K6uX-6Q
Confidential 🙂
To your question about the role of the dream in reality.
I found that the main function of the dream is to sort the long-term memory, and all other effects are just side effects.
The process is carried out as follows: the memory sorter pulls out an event from the last time, usually from the last waking period, and compares it with events in the long-term memory. When an event is found that the sorter finds a connection between it and the sorted item, it labels it accordingly. During the process, illogical comparisons are made (sometimes also nightmares) that in the waking state the dreamer would react in a difficult way, and for that reason certain functions in the dreamer's body must be paralyzed. The paralysis is made possible by sleep. If sleep is disturbed, the sorting process is interrupted in the middle and then the dream is also remembered. When the sorting is completed successfully, the dream is deleted. There are people whose paralysis is abnormal, and this manifests itself in "moon disease". There are those in whom the dream takes place while awake, and the manifestation of this is schizophrenia.
"Prophecy was given to fools", we explained to the mentally ill who dream even while awake.
monument
By the way, someone once said: "Ghost remote action"
Try to see the OBE experience through the perspective of quantum mechanics.
The dream happens at the individual level. And on a more physical level - only in the brain.
It is important to understand that the atoms in the brain cannot (even as a group) travel such distances, from the brain to outside the body.
Therefore physically there is not even confirmation that an OBE can be experienced.
monument
Peace.
There is at least one more subject related to dreams, which is dream control. I don't know if you have had the chance to experience such dreams, but here is an example: if during the dream you dream that you are running, then at the moment you recognize (I was confused about what word to write) the fact that you are dreaming and that you are running in the dream, at this moment, succeed in 'taking control of the dream' so that you choose In a 'conscious' way in the dream itself, to stop for example, and then again according to a so-called conscious decision to continue running (or to change the pace of running at will, for example).
By the way, then the question arises as to whether the 'conscious' decision in the dream is really voluntary or is it part of the dream - from my personal experience I can say that the 'conscious' decision is really a conscious decision, because it causes a change in the thinking in the dream (and this process of thinking in the dream is The dream itself. That is, in a dream everything that happens is a kind of thinking) Therefore the dream itself also changes - that is, the scene becomes different from what it was - and as soon as this happens, then the conscious thinking disappears again and you return to the dream without being aware of it, until the next time you are able to recognize the moment in which you are dreaming , then again to take control of the dream and then again the dream will change and you will not be aware of it, then again you will recognize the moment when you are dreaming... and God forbid.
I hope I was clear enough on such a vague subject, and if not I would love to hear your opinion because it seems to me that you understand the matter.
Machel
Hello. You, of course, also as someone who understands the matter (and assuming you understood what I wrote), are welcome to add your opinion on the subject, I will be happy.
Dreamy, the question is whether or not every night you dream that this article will arrive 🙂
I dreamed yesterday that this article would appear here, my life!!
There is no reference to the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli - and his collaboration with Carl Jung on archetypal dreams.
It may be kosher but stinks.
I mean that a lot of experience has accumulated in cheating, biases that were not taken into account, experiments that were conducted negligently, etc., and when you take all of these into account, as far as I know, only phenomena remain whose size of effect is negligible. In other words, most of the works and studies in the field have been disproved, or remain poorly described anecdotes, and the more you try to repeat things, and the more the control measures are sharpened - the effects disappear.
And the question is, how long is it worth investing in research in areas that repeatedly turn up nothing? Except for arguments about whether the coin fell 501,000 times out of a million because of the will of the subjects, or because something in the machine that cast it was unbalanced (it's a metaphor, but that's about the picture of the situation).
And when the experiment is repeated, as happened with PEAR, suddenly it falls more or less around 500,000 times. or 499,000 times according to the will of the subjects. And then they start coming up with theories why it's the other way around... This is how the field of parapsychology looks from a bird's eye view...
and another question. You wrote:
There is always some unexplained case here and there. The question is what is the overall picture. And the big picture is that, after more than 100 years of intensive investigations in these areas, the findings are highly controversial at best.
It doesn't prove anything. It cannot be concluded that there is nothing in this whole field just because the findings are controversial, don't you think there could be other reasons why these issues are controversial?
Perhaps Weissman put it best - the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world - these issues have revolutionary potential.
It's a hot potato that not many are willing to deal with and apparently the existing methods fail to provide conclusive evidence that will be acceptable to all parties - beyond agendas and biases for administration.
Regarding PEAR, at the time I came to the conclusion that it was the most serious team.
Regarding the size of the negligible effect - this is particularly relevant for PEAR.
To some extent unfortunately even, their first attempt to reproduce their findings in another laboratory did not go well:
As far as the replication results themselves are concerned, we are left with
an empirical paradox. Whereas the prior PEAR experiments clearly displayed
anomalous secular trends in REG output distribution means in correlation with
operator intention, the three-laboratory replications, which employed essen-
tially similar equipment and protocols, failed by an order of magnitude to
replicate the primary correlations. –
This failure is masked as far as I can improve, with tons of graphs, tables and numbers, excuses, reasonings and hypotheses, in this (relatively new) study:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2000-mmi-consortium-portreg-replication.pdf
There are indeed many question marks, and many agendas (and we won't talk about Randy's, a million dollars and prestige is a pretty strong motive) but here and there there is a glimmer of something that has been thoroughly tested and declared to be out of the norm. See Pear's studies - or did you give them as an opposite example?
And this is said about Uri Geller whose personality is difficult to digest and clouds the successes as well as the failures.
But if we return to distance vision, things are even more questionable (here and here).
Heyman, as mentioned, is not the only one who referred to Uri Geller. It is clear that it is impossible to remove from the picture the personal agendas of all those involved, the whole background of life and beliefs that each side brings with it. In the end it is about people. This is true for all parties.
But this is where the issue of plausibility comes in.
Randi entered the international spotlight in 1972 when he publicly challenged the claims of Uri Geller. Randi accused Geller of being nothing more than a charlatan and a fraud who used standard magic tricks to accomplish his allegedly paranormal feats, and he supported his claims in the book The Truth About Uri Geller.[16][35] Geller sued Randi for $15 million in 1991 and lost.[36] Geller's suit against the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) was thrown out in 1995, and he was ordered to pay $120,000 for filing a frivolous lawsuit.[37]
At the beginning of the second edition of the book, Randy mentions this claim. And here is a fact, a second edition was released despite everything.
All the evidence should be considered. In this case, if we add Geller's failures precisely at the times when they "fixed things" so that he could not cheat, the conditions of the negligent experiments, the times when a heavy suspicion of cheating was exposed right in front of the cameras, etc. - a certain picture emerges.
There is always some unexplained case here and there. The question is what is the overall picture. And the big picture is that, after more than 100 years of intensive investigations in these areas, the findings are highly controversial at best.
And another important point. What is the magnitude of the effect we are talking about?
It is customary to brandish indices of "statistical significance", and to indicate astronomical numbers of significance. But what is the size of the effect? These are negligible effects that cannot be noticed in everyday life. Just as an analogy, it's like saying a coin has landed on a certain side 501,000 instead of 500,000 times out of a million tosses. And when it comes to such small effects, suspicions about systematic biases of this and that, selective publication and not a little, and the power of biased meta-analysis to produce statistically significant results begin to enter the picture.
A good example of this is the research by the PEAR team, which at the time impressed me as the most serious team operating in the field.
monument,
Also in the link you provided regarding the results of the studies on Uri Geller (and he is really not my cup of tea but he is a suitable test case) you have to read the fine print. For example:
Hyman would not have observed any testing by Puthoff and Targ. Hyman's experiments were observed and videotaped by Puthoff and Targ, who said that they were conducted in an 'informal manner' and 'largely uncontrolled'.
Heiman is the one who challenged the results of Potthoff and Targ's studies. Looks a bit like ego wars.
As far as I have read, what is written is that Uri Geller "could have cheated" in studies, but it was not explicitly written anywhere that someone caught him cheating in the act. That might be enough for most people, not for me.
And this too - magicians and professional eyewitnesses also conducted an examination to find out how Uri Geller cheats:
In 1974, William E. Cox organized a committee within the Society of American Magicians to 'investigate false claims of ESP'. Geller was tested by Cox, who was impressed by some positive test results which his scrutiny could find no fraud. For example, William E. Cox held a robust key with one finger on a table and watched as it bent with Geller in view, and noticed no trickery.[55][56] Geller was to be tested by two other magicians from the Society.
As I said - apparently things are not sharp and smooth.
Richard Wiseman is just fine. Recently published a readable and fascinating book about supernatural phenomena, from a skeptical angle. He is also an amateur magician or even more so (can't remember).
http://richardwiseman.wordpress.com/paranormality-why-we-see-what-isnt-there/
Michael,
Not trying to deceive anyone. Stop attributing intentions.
The person quoted is a member of the Skeptical Research Association, apart from being a professor of psychology at the University of Hardfordshire.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI)
In his opinion there is weight. How do you know he doesn't know the tricks? Isn't this required of his membership in the association? Or are you dismissing him just because he's a psychologist?
The other self:
I suggest you read carefully what you quote (or - if you read carefully - don't try to deceive the others).
It doesn't say that the studies do meet scientific standards, but someone (a psychologist who doesn't know all the tricks) said so.
People who do understand the subject completely denied the things.
The other me - I refer you back to the books I referred you to. They refer to these studies in detail. I assume that you can also find material available on the Internet about the references to these studies.
Tastings can be found here: http://www.skepdic.com/geller.html
And here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Scientific_testing
Again, it is not easy to disprove claims that have accumulated over decades. Each topic and subtopic is a study in itself. I'm just throwing yarn ends here.
Michael,
As far as I have read, the Princeton laboratory study from which I quoted above confirms the results of the previous studies and I have not seen it directly refuted. If you have a link that directly refutes it please post.
And here's something else - again from your link...
What is being said here in essence is that these studies **yes** meet scientific standards but because they deal with a subject that has revolutionary potential then the bar of proof should be much higher.
ZA - According to what we see here, there is no debate about the validity of the scientific methods, but only about the fact that because of the subject, a higher standard should be found... hmm... it sounds biased to me.
Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science, but that the bar of evidence needs to be much higher for outlandish claims that will revolutionize the world, and thus he remains unconvinced:[30]
"I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (…) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence." Richard Wiseman Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28–29 [30]
A grouped reference to some of the charlatans that were suggested to be referenced:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/1425-jref-on-nightline-beyond-belief-in-more-ways-than-one.html
The other self:
Of course, the claims that refute them were also brought up in the link. Otherwise the rebuttal would have no meaning.
monument,
I refer you again to the introduction I brought up here.
Uri Geller participated in one of the SRI experiments. Things may not be that sharp and smooth.
Regarding studies that Uri Geller was involved in, a lot of water has already flowed in the river since then.
You can read about it in the book http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Uri-Geller/dp/0879751991
And a chapter is also dedicated to this in Flim Flam
I got the impression that these are amateurish and careless studies like none other, which include, among other things, selective publications of successes.
Michael,
Even in the link you provided despite the conclusion given at the beginning of the article, there are opinions here and there when you read between the lines.
For example - read this excerpt:
PEAR's Remote Perception program
Following Utts' emphasis on replication and Hyman's challenge on interlaboratory consistency in the AIR report, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab conducted several hundred trials to see if they could replicate the SAIC and SRI experiments. They created an analytical judgment methodology to replace the human judging process that was criticized in past experiments, and they released a report in 1996. They felt the results of the experiments were consistent with the SRI experiments.[22]
I went to link 22 http://web.archive.org/web/20080407143457/http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/jse_papers/9PRP+i0892-3310-010-01-0109.pdf
Pay attention to what is written in the summary:
The precognitive subset of these data, consisting of about
of the independent trials, seems particularly important to the postulation 75%
of viable theoretical models, and has been emphasized throughout.
Thus, these databases, comprising one of the largest accumulations of relevant experiments performed under consistent and well controlled experimental protocols, have already provided robust evidence that the findings in the
SRI/SAIC Remote Viewing experiments can be replicated independently, but
essentially similar designs.
By the way, the Scientologist Potthoff's claims were also refuted
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Michael,
My intention was far from accusing. I'm sorry if it was interpreted that way.
By the way - if the brain falls out of the body is this considered an out-of-body experience? (Just a joke, don't take it seriously... :-))
And of course - there will always be liars and liars and I have no pretense of eliminating the phenomenon.
I'm just trying to help a little to people who are willing to examine things seriously and not leave their heads so open that their brains fall out of them.
Words can negate anything,
Simply by adding the word "no" at the beginning.
The other self:
What are these accusations?
Is something I said not allowing the discussion?
After all, I participated in the discussion!
Well, I couldn't resist…
An article published in 1974 on distance vision in Nature and examined, among others, Uri Geller. (Published in Nature, VOL 252, No. 5476, Oct. 18, 1974, pp. 602-607)
http://www.urigeller.com/books/geller-papers/g3.htm
The results are extremely surprising.
This. The rest is really in the email.
The article is nicely edited and everything in it is probably true, but it is missing. As Gilad says, the article does not prove that there is no prophecy in dreams, and to the best of my estimation, neither do Machal's books prove the impossibility of prophetic dreams or other aspects of the soul. Time is symmetrical.
The story about Lincoln if it is true is impressive even though Lincoln saw a different person, apparently a different president, because it is very difficult for a person to put himself in a horrible situation, and the dream is not neutralized on a psychological level.
I had a number of dreams, some of them dramatic, that contained many details that happened in reality shortly after them, and I allow myself to remain skeptical about my ability (and the ability of others) to fully understand and explain reality.
monument,
One more thing about distance vision, I'll send you the rest by email.
This is a list of US remote viewing research projects, some military, with links to documents or other relevant information:
http://www.homesecurity.us/articles/a-timeline-of-us-research-into-remote-viewing.html
Michael - sometimes there is new additional information, sometimes things need to be examined in a broader context, as I wrote, your opinion has already been made up, mine and others have not yet. Let's allow the discussion, it will probably be interesting...
The other self:
I'm just saying that if something is shown to be a lie - you don't need to revisit all the examples of liars who have been proven to be liars.
On the other hand, my reaction probably stemmed from the wrong reasons.
I thought you brought up Casey's example as a contradiction to Gilad's words, while you may have meant only that the coverage would not be complete without her.
I can accept that because a lot of people believe his bullshit.
monument,
It seems to me that Michael and I will only drown you even more in information...
Here is a taste of remote vision - here is an attempt to test an Egyptian site with two "technologies" of sonar scanning and remote vision - it seems balanced and the results are very interesting:
http://www.stephanaschwartz.com/category/papers-and-research-reports/archeology-and-applied-remote-viewing/
An excellent book about leaving the body - descriptions written by a man who has been traveling out of body for 20 years, including very detailed descriptions of the methods he uses and the "places" he visited when he was out of body. Although it is not scientific it is fascinating. If it interests you, read what the convinced side says...
http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Beyond-Body-Out-Body/dp/0062513710 ) I can lend it to you if you want.
Michael,
Unfortunately I did not understand your question...
Regarding Edgar Cayce and OBE and NDE - Gilad makes an effort here to approach these issues in an unbiased way, and examine them from several angles.
This is in my opinion a worthy attempt and Edgar Cayce in this context is a worthy subject. You claim these are lies because you've already made up your mind and you don't want to go and look at these kinds of things again.
It's fine, I have no complaints, your approach is known and recognized and you have every right to hold it. However, some of us have a need to examine things in a way that will allow discussion and open an opening for further understandings or, alternatively, a refinement of the existing ones.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-08-03/
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-08-10/
monument:
Another interesting book is Reincarnation: A Critical Examination
It is less scientific and less in-depth, but it applies references to many of the "examples" that all kinds of people claim without any basis that the reference to them is not scientific.
The other self:
Scientific things no less than the far-fetched anecdotes about Edgar Cayce.
If you are not referring to non-scientific things - why did you raise the issue?
monument:
An excellent book in the field is the following book:
The God Impulse: A Neurologist Searches for the Spiritual Doorway in the Brain. by Kevin Nelson
monument,
Beautiful! Here is synchronicity... you see - I knew you were working on it 🙂 (To Michael - just to make sure you know that the above statement is a personal impression and does not meet scientific standards, so there is no need for your reference...)
Gilad - I will send you a list.
The other me - thank you.
I've added Casey to my endless list. On the contrary, it certainly refers to the realms of the "supernatural" from a research angle.
These days I am literally drowning in material on the subject of OBE and NDE. I would be happy to receive references to relevant material. You can send me to the email specified in the blog. Fascinating topic. It will take me a while to master it...
The other self:
And why is reference to lies necessary?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce#Controversy_and_criticism
very interesting. I am missing a reference to Edgar Cayce who predicted many things from a trance state of sleep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce#Psychic_abilities
It could have been an interesting test case for the article, unless you decided not to comment because it belongs to the realms of the "supernatural"...
A proposal for another article - leaving the body and seeing from a distance things that were recorded. If you want sources, I have several.
Confidential, an interesting interpretation of the nature of dreams.
Usually we dream about things that scare us, and terrorize us.
When a person dreams of the same thing, the feelings of fear and terror are activated and he is forced to deal with the same dream, under the impression that it is all real.
For example, an ancient man who dreamed of a lion standing in front of him, experienced the terrible feeling, and later he knew how to function better when he had to hunt it or something like that (of course this requires serious and comprehensive research, if there really can be a positive effect).
I find this interpretation very interesting.
Clarification: It is clear that all the arguments I put forward do not >prove< that there is no such thing as a prophetic dream. The purpose of the article is only to raise awareness of the abundance of alternative explanations and additional misconceptions. Food for thought.
And regarding coincidences, I invite you to answer a small survey (you can take a look at the results after you have answered it):
http://wp.me/p1K6uX-6f
If Lincoln had really dreamed a prophetic dream, he would have done what the dream commanded him to be good in the eyes of his God, and he would not have been killed.
A narrow explanation in my opinion that ignores additional possibilities that do not necessarily deviate from the laws of nature. What would Yekir Aharonov say about that? In short, I am far from convinced.
We still don't know the software that governs our mind
we know that dreams process the information perceived in our daily lives (PB of data daily) – to answer confidential
to date we simply call it quantum mechanics and it rules not just our minds but every thing chaos in this universe
As an individual it is difficult to understand we have no control over it all and we may all be
just 'statistical probabilities', so anytime we read of a prophecy or revelation it is only human nature that we should react to it with passion
our greatest challenge in this life is our understanding of how insignificant we all are in the scope of time-space, and then once we do keep realizing it every day without frustration or remorse
indeed, what a challenge
Great article, I enjoyed reading it.
Here is a somewhat interesting question - what is the role of the dream in reality? If there is no such thing as prophetic dreams or any other type of dream except a lucid dream and the experience of "sleep paralysis", are the dreams merely imaginary pleasure? Don't they have any meaning whatsoever? any purpose?