The Science of Visions: Exploring the Unseen Phenomenon

[ZapperZ]

Just exactly what kind of "clear concrete" evidence do you expect?

You seem to have set a clear boundry on your capacity to understand/examine anything new based on your past experiences which for some reason best known to you are not to be challanged.





This is not a discusion about what anyone is comfortable with. The majority was never comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat or the sun being the center of the solar system (though all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

As I said earlier you need to step out of your comfort zone to progress!

.


What "already esablished fact" that such a thing can happen are you talking about?

Is there an already established fact that such a thing can't happen?

As for the flag of scientific evidence that you have been waving so high, if you are dismiss the experience, how do you expect to obtain evidence The fact of the experience is the evidence that we need to consider.

You have the attitude ofa blind man refusing to believe the existence of colour!




You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.

Or maybe you completely missed the point that I've been trying to make?

1. This person makes a claim

2. Can this claim have a 'scientific explanation'?

3. Scientific explanation cannot be formulated when the evidence isn't clear.

4. The nature of the evidence is extremely important for something to be accepted as a valid phenomenon. Anecdotal evidence has never been considered as valid evidence.

5. Anecdotal evidence CAN become valid evidence upon further testing. Valid phenomenon becomes more well know and better understood as more testing are done and repeated under various conditions and circumstances.

6. Many anecdotal evidence never got around past First Base, no matter how long the claim of such evidence have been made. These tend to be called pseudosciences.

7. To ask or seek 'scientific description or explanation' for #6 is futile due to #3.

So which of these points that I had made do you disagree?

Zz.

 

[RetardedBastard]

The majority was never comfortable with the idea of the Earth being flat or the sun being the center of the solar system (though all "clear concrete evidence" suggested the same).

Not to nitpick but, can you give me the data to back this up?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You don't mince words but anyone who has read this thread will agree that you make a hash of what you have to say.

No. Zz is making very articulate and sound points.

 

[novaa77]

Not to nitpick but, can you give me the data to back this up?

Oops, the "never" was never supposed to be there. Have a look now.

 

[novaa77]

Or maybe you completely missed the point that I've been trying to make?

1. This person makes a claim

2. Can this claim have a 'scientific explanation'?

Is there any reason to believe it can't have a scientific explanation

3. Scientific explanation cannot be formulated when the evidence isn't clear.

4. The nature of the evidence is extremely important for something to be accepted as a valid phenomenon. Anecdotal evidence has never been considered as valid evidence.

If you are looking for physical, tangiable evidence you are not going to get any. As I mentioned earlier the fact of the experience is the evidence, unless you disregard the whole thing as some trick the mind is playing.

5. Anecdotal evidence CAN become valid evidence upon further testing. Valid phenomenon becomes more well know and better understood as more testing are done and repeated under various conditions and circumstances.

Seems to contridict point 4. This is exactly what I mean. This phenomenon has to be
studied further to understand what is going on. However if we are to dismiss it as hokum (based on earlier experience) prior testing, how are we to know if it is a valid phenomenon?

 

[minorwork]

What be the significance of this phenomena? Especially without the ability to perform on command. Is it a lightning bolt out of the blue? If so then chance will drop the significance of the visions true or no.

 

[novaa77]

What be the significance of this phenomena? Especially without the ability to perform on command. Is it a lightning bolt out of the blue? If so then chance will drop the significance of the visions true or no.

What is the significance of the phenomena?
Are you kidding me?

Do you not realize the implications (if proved to be true) of being able to "see" the future not only in sciencetific terms but also on a personal level.

 

[NeoDevin]

novaa77: I think what ZapperZ is saying is that there is no way to offer a scientific explanation, and no reason to consider it an actual phenomenon, until after testing has been done (using a reliable method) to confirm that it is actually happening, and not, as some have suggested, merely the mind playing tricks on itself.

To help it become actual evidence, the OP should do as was suggested, and write down visions as they occur (preferably with witnesses present), and then make note when they actually happen. There is no reason to consider modifying the current scientific thoughts on visions/precognition until it has been ruled out that one of the current explanations is false. If it becomes conclusively shown that the current explanations are incorrect, I would bet that a great many scientists would consider it a valid phenomenon (though I'm sure there would also be many who wouldn't).

 

[minorwork]

from novaa77
What is the significance of the phenomena?
Are you kidding me?

Do you not realize the implications (if proved to be true) of being able to "see" the future not only in sciencetific terms but also on a personal level.

Do we not "see" the future now? Will not the light come on when I throw the switch? What tests determine the veracity of this vision? Is this a significant example of what you refer to as "seeing?" Does the light coming on prove I knew the future or did I calculate the probabilities when predicting the light? "Even a blind sow finds an acorn once in a while."

Again. What be the significance of this phenomena?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We are not interested in making subjective judgements about signficance. Were it true that people have visions of the future, from a scientific point of view the significance would be deep and profound - Earth'shaking!

 

[minorwork]

Precognition. Ability to perceive information about places or events through paranormal means before they happen. This seems the term in question. The term "paranormal" is anathema to scientific investigation. Drop the term and proceed.

I am hesitant to offer as a suggested reading but much influence has been felt by J.W. Dunne's Experiment in Time. I consider it pseudoscience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Paranormal" is defined as: something impossible to explain with science; not in accordance with scientific laws; seemingly outside normal sensory channels.

The word "impossible" is misleading. If a phenomenon is real then it is a subject of science. If imaginary, then it doesn't exist. But to say that something is real and can never be explained, is a prediction. So strictly speaking, to say that something is "paranormal" is at least a philosophical statement, and at most a psychic claim!

 

[minorwork]

from Ivan Seeking
"Paranormal" is defined as: something impossible to explain with science; not in accordance with scientific laws; seemingly outside normal sensory channels.

The word "impossible" is misleading. If a phenomenon is real then it is a subject of science. If imaginary, then it doesn't exist. But to say that something is real and can never be explained, is a prediction. So strictly speaking, to say that something is "paranormal" is at least a philosophical statement, and at most a psychic claim!

According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.

And from the same journal;

PRECOGNITION: A form of ESP involving awareness of some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present.

So from the individuals point of view, a dream coming true requires only that the experiencer can not explain the mechanism involved for the term "paranormal" to apply?

 

[zoobyshoe]

According to the Journal of Parapsychology, the term paranormal describes "any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.

And from the same journal;

PRECOGNITION: A form of ESP involving awareness of some future event that cannot be deduced from normally known data in the present.

So from the individuals point of view, a dream coming true requires only that the experiencer can not explain the mechanism involved for the term "paranormal" to apply?

According to the definitions you've offered, the individual may apply this term if he believes, not that he, himself, can't explain it, but that science can't explain it.

 

[minorwork]

So if the experiencer can't explain his/her vision and he thinks science can't, then the vision is classified paranormal. Did I get it yet?

Some explanations are "better" than others? Has science come up with several explanations for the planets paths in the sky? Ptolemy had his epicycles that would predict future locations. Then Newton simplified by projecting gravity to the planets. And then, my favorite, electricity.

Electricity to me is a wonder. I wonder what it is. How it works.

Some say electricity is smoke. Let the smoke out, it quits working.

Some say electricity is like water. A lot of tutorials use this.

Electricity is the flow of electrons we are told. Our scientists tell us that no matter how sophisticated our instruments get we will never see an electron at a certain time. It is imagined.

Then there is The Greenie Theory. A near perfect scientific model. It works in every case, it’s easy to believe, and it’s impossible to disprove. Greenies are too small to see. They are imaginary. The little Greenie girls buy the kegs, and turn up the stereo. The Greenie guys live to party and a party means girls, beer and rock n’ roll. The Greenie guys hear the music and the “need to party” comes over them. The Greenie to English dictionary calls this “voltage.” Kenn Amdahl covers all the other electrical jargon and gives us an internally consistent theory we can use to manipulate the world around us by the use of imaginary things. His book is called: There Are No Electrons: Electronics For Earthlings

Ben Franklin said the “electric fluid” flowed from the glass rod ( excess electrons) to the amber. And so today in industry electrons are diagrammed as an imaginary fluid on schematics as flowing from the positive to the negative. This understanding is called the “conventional theory.”

Today electrons are understood to proceed from the negative to the positive. This model is called the “electron theory.” Industry has not changed from the conventional theory to the newer more accurate electron theory because the two are translatable and each is internally consistent. The schematic symbols are direction dependent, not symmetric and would have to be changed. The diode and transistor symbols especially. To change over would be like changing from the English to the metric system.

Which explains the data “best?” For me and you, does “best” mean easiest for us to understand? Does “best” mean predictability? Just what is best?

An explanation for precognition needs to be internally consistent. It can be impossible to disprove. Like the "conventional" theory of electricity or the "Greenie", the explanation must work when used by those in the field, that is by the poor repairman trying to figure out why the heck the thing don't work and how do I fix it. We do want precog to work, right?

 

[zoobyshoe]

So if the experiencer can't explain his/her vision and he thinks science can't, then the vision is classified paranormal. Did I get it yet?

I was answering your question as asked. From any individual's point of view the word "paranormal" is appropriate if he believes science can't explain his "vision". In other words, the word is an appropriate expression of his perception under the circumstances. Someone else may regard his experience as something different.

 

[minorwork]

Indeed, some dreams I have written have been astonishingly close to events transpiring within weeks. Without digging out the 37 year old record I can recall that which astonished me. The dream was of a fountain with stairs on either side flowing from one pool to another. Next image immediately after I was on a motorcycle, downtown, heading south trying to out run a storm. I'm a son of a biscuit eater if it didn't happen but that I took the girlfriend to the movie showing I think it was Jason and the Argonauts where I immediately recognized the fountain. After the show a line storm was coming out of the west and we high tailed it out of town on my motorcycle.

I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

 

[OOO]

I don't know if it has been remarked in this thread before. I think there are at least two levels at which one could refine the question of the thread starter into something that can be subject to scientific investigation:

(1) Is there a reproducible phenomenon of precognition ?
(2) Is there a real but episodic perception of apparent precognition ?

If we accept the (unproven) presumption that the thread starter is not a fraud then at least (2) is scientifically accessible regardless of whether it can really be confirmed as precognition (which I personally have no doubt it can't). In this spirit I understand thread starter's want to investigate his/her subjective perception from a scientific point of view.

But, as far as I know, psychology or neurophysiology or whatever neurosciences are in a too primitive state to be able to explain such complex phenomena as visions even in the most rudimentary way. But even if they were able to explain it, I doubt that this would satisfy thread starter because the interesting thing about these phenomena is that they are subjective.

To illustrate what I mean, let me talk about nightly dreams and the fact that we remember them when we are forced to wake up during REM sleep. I guess neurosciences say something about protein biosynthesis which determines long-term memory and if you don't wake up you don't build enough proteins to remember the dream.

But what I have frequently asked myself after waking up from a vivid dream is: who can say this with absolute scientific certainty ? Who can say whether the people in the control group which have not been forced to wake up, only didn't remember their dream because of lack of protein synthesis or if they haven't actually dreamt anything (e.g. as a result of lacking protein synthesis) ? Ask this yourself tomorrow morning when you wake up and don't remember any dream: where are all those dreams they say occur in REM sleep ? Did they happen in short-term memory and you've just forgotten them ? Or did they never happen and you were just rolling your eyeballs around ?

I'd say that memory can be an extremely strange thing to say the least. So if you really got these visions, enjoy them. And by the time you find out how to foresee the lottery numbers we should make an appointment.

 

[Huckleberry]

I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

Doesn't paranormal mean that it can't be explained by science? Why wouldn't you consider it a paranormal experience if you have no explanation for it? Is there some fear of the word, or some expectation that science is currently supposed to have an explanation for everything, or is this a misinterpretation of definitions?

Perhaps in the future, events like this will be testable and explainable by science. Then they won't be paranormal anymore. I don't understand the resistance to this idea. Your statement seems contradictory to me. What am I not understanding?

 

[Bonteburg]

uh... has anyone mentioned Andrew Newberg yet?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433&q=andrew+newberg&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Video is oldish but he's apparently still at it.

Marco :)

 

[minorwork]

from Huckleberry

Quote:
Originally Posted by minorwork
I cannot explain the mechanism and I do not consider this paranormal. You suggest I should?

Doesn't paranormal mean that it can't be explained by science? Why wouldn't you consider it a paranormal experience if you have no explanation for it? Is there some fear of the word, or some expectation that science is currently supposed to have an explanation for everything, or is this a misinterpretation of definitions?

Perhaps in the future, events like this will be testable and explainable by science. Then they won't be paranormal anymore. I don't understand the resistance to this idea. Your statement seems contradictory to me. What am I not understanding?

Primarily I seek a common definition so as to communicate and understand. Yes, I somewhat fear the word. I guess in the same manner as "supernatural." These are able to be abused by those claiming special powers worthy of worship. They are charged words that do not denote, at least for me, a precision in usage. But, a "vision having no explanation" being called "paranormal" only until our science improves is OK with me. As long as some agreement on this strict usage is agreed upon, like I've anything to say about it, I will use it that way. After all it is shorter than "unexplained semi-conscious phenomenon only studied at a later time and from memory with no video or pictures."

 

[minorwork]

My personal conclusions on precog visions/dreams. There will generally be an unfilled parameter describing the reference frame at the arrival of the visions fulfillment.
Examples;
Lottery number seen but not the winning date. Maybe a past winner. Maybe like the movie "23" the numbers are related by some demonic formula to the winners. Which particular lottery not seen.

Unable to recall the vision/dream until fulfillment. (deja vu)

Forsee fathers death of unseen cancer and the father when told doesn't care, calls you crazy and cuts you out of the will. This falls under the category of "so what good was the vision" or the significance factor.

And there is always the slimmest of chances that the vision is not of the future but a symbolic way of dealing with your drinking problem.

Yeah, attempts have been made by governments to get useful information from this area of study but as far as I know the signal to noise ratio is so low that nothing over chance can consistently be shown. Those asking money for courses in precognition or "remote viewing" (the popular term,) are suspect of self fulfilling their vision of increased personal wealth.

 

[Huckleberry]

After all it is shorter than "unexplained semi-conscious phenomenon only studied at a later time and from memory with no video or pictures."

Yeah, that would be quite a mouthful. And you're right, paranormal is a charged word. It's a conundrum.

 

[angel 42]

Hello again, sounds like I missed a lot, I was somewhat busy but I'm back.
Some of you guys asks me about my visions how does it happen, when, is it like dreams, or always about me.….
So, I preferred to distribute "VISIONS" as follows: (this is only my notes)

1-DREAMS: which we all experience them since childhood until now. Off course, it happens while sleeping. Almost you are involving in it 'your vision', rarely not. There could be a lot of fantasy in dreams like seeing a red sea and other stuff like that. Moreover, you can live the fantasy, like seeing and feeling you're flying in the sky, in other words it could break the laws of physics. Another thing about dreams, you 'feel' yourself living it, as if your body and soul exist in this kind of visions. It also could include your past, current or future life.
TIMING: WHILE SLEEP.

2-VISIONS OF THOUGHTS: I don't know what exactly shall I call this kind, which we all experience it (I guess), but I'll give an example:
If you're welling to visit your girlfriend let's say to ask her for a date, you'll then keep thinking a lot and "imagine"((which is here a vision)) her response… I think you got me. It's related to your concerns until you're done with them. But here you DON'T "see yourself" like computer games (as a third person), you may only feel. Think of it.
TIMING: BETWEEN THINKING OF SOMETHING IMPORTANT UNTILL DEALING WITH IT.

3-VISIONS OF MEMORY: this is when you remember someone as an old friend or so, then you'll start to "remind"((which is here a vision)) yourself the old days. Clearly, this kind of visions is only about your past, again you only can feel yourself but not seeing it.
TIMING: WHENEVER YOU REMEMBER AN EVENT OF YOUR LIFE.

4-VISIONS OF FUTURE: this is happening when thinking randomly. Nothing precisely concerns or disturbs your thoughts. It could be when you carelessly watch the TV or while doing "carelessly" whatever activity. The vision jumped to your mind, you see it as if you are a cinematographer like I described above {like computer games (as a third person)}. Here you don't feel at all only see yourself, as if your soul is watching your body, you're also involve in the vision. [May be the reason behind this unfeeling is you don't experience this situation yet, so the unconsciousness don't know what kind of feeling shall it tied with this vision…maybe]. You're awake when see this kind of visions you also may comment at your vision like the one I gave as an example previously in this thread. And it's always about something in the future but you don't never know when. After, when it happen, it happens exactly the same[let's say from the first scene to the last one exactly the same BUT HERE YOU FEEL YOURSELF].
TIMING: NON.

5-VISIONS OF THE FUTURE CAN BE CONTROLED: here it's the same as 4, but here you relies earlier that you saw this as a vision while it's still happening (unlike 4), so you could change some of what you knew that will happen next!
TIMING: NON.
I tried my best to discribe this, my main point is 4 and 5, hope it'll make things clear.

 

[chiralc]

Seizures?

Sounds a bit like simple partial seizures. You may be fully conscious, but experience feelings of deja vu with visual hallucinations or other sensations.

 

[minorwork]

Since my post #14 of this thread, it has come to my attention that Concentration by Ernest Wood is available on line at http://www.theosophical.ca/ConcentrationEW.htm"
This is a great opportunity.

 

[keinve]

well, it is probably these 'visions' can be mostly self-fullfilling. the more you start to think they are real, the more you will start to follow through with them subconsciously.

 

[minorwork]

And the "deja vu" experiences can generate convictions for previous visions. These experiences, because of their everyday nature, can be classed "deja vu." Visions of space alien abductations beg for another classification.

 

[muggle]

Hello, I have had visions exactly as you describe. I have had visions since I was 5 or 6 years old. They have come in varying lengths. Most are in the form of seeing the event and then experiencing that exact same event in minute detail years later. Some however, have been in the form of knowledge that I could not possibly have, I knew things that would be impossible for me to know through any logical way.
I will spare the none believers the details.
I look at it this way, If the world operated without eye sight as a common sense that the vast majority of humans shared, then those who were able to see via eye sight would be mocked, disbelieved and at best not understood.
There is a critical mass of humans on the Earth who now have the ability of Visions and other senses that many humans alive today do not share.
This does not make the experience any less valid. If most people are unable to understand visions, then we simply have to study it ourselves and find the answers to how it works so that more people can experience it.
Both of my children have it, and more and more people are getting the ability by birth.
It is nothing to fear --- and it is nothing to deny.
I do not have many resources on the subject, but Depak Chopra, the Dali Lama, and numerous religions accept it as reality.
I will begin to read some of the books suggested by other people posting and see if I can learn more.
-

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi muggle,

You are welcome to share your personal experiences, but you need to provide supporting evidence in the form of credible data to show that claims of visions are on the rise generally. Also, note that your experiences, even if true, do not validate the claims of others.

 

[minorwork]

Welcome, Muggle.

The word "vision" is so broad that it begs for some kind of taxonomic breakdown. Like life. Life forms are generally talked of as the "tree of life" though other configurations are now in the mix, the spiral for example. But as life is better understood by a classification system I believe that inner, private, subjective experiences benefits by this treatment. Sadly, becuse of religion's claims to ownership of these inner experiences, the student will spend most of his time investigating systems that offer explanations compatible with the students personal upbringing/life/biases, instead of choosing and proceeding to advanced work. Can't be helped as far as I know. The system must be compatible with the student.

Your readings should give some indication of the work being done in the classification of visions. Keep a journal by the bed. Document and test. Go for the Lottery. A win, with some verifiable evidence of intentional vision production and the techniques used, will go a long way to gaining respect from the objective sciences. Might destroy the Lottery but, hey, it's all in the name of science. Right?

 

[minorwork]

Objective evidence, for what it's worth, is being teased in front of us for the visions known as "out of body." http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/10/06/near-death-brain.html" .

I've seen nothing yet that relates the phenomena above to that of the recently measured http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/19841/" .

Objective phenomenal descriptions are fine, but what is the subjective vision of that moment before death? There have been such descriptions from accident scenes and operating rooms. Can these subjective out of body experiences be replicated in the lab while being monitored by fMRI for analysis or like the first link by eeg tracings? Then could a training regimen be developed that would enable those with interest, a means to experience the vision of death without dying? Yes. Would this be a threat to religious ownership in the field of visions? A threat, surely. But if a healthy body and a reduction of stress are necessary, then clearing the conscience and establishing an encompassing system by which to interpret the visions would be a healthy thing. If the base system was one embracing UFO abductions, well, I'd have to balk. My mental blocks. A broad knowledge of a lot of systems is best. Knowledge preparation-wise, a "full belly" would be advantageous to prevent fanaticism to a single system.