PLEASE TELL I AM NOT CRAZY. . . . . . . SURELY TO GOODNESS, I CANNOT BE THE ONLY ONE, . . . CAN I.??

Hendrow said:

I think the source of this ability is HFA-Autism

You sincerely believe that you can do these things. I beg to differ.

I would use the word illusion rather than ability.

None of the other forum members have this ability so it is not likely to be a result of autism.

I suspect that you have been under enormous stress recently to the extent that you really don't know if you are coming or going.

I guess that you are also taking medication that will have side effects. Some side effects can be profoundly mind altering.

Hey Recombinantsocks,

Given that:

Hendrow said:

I can see, like an X-ray into my partners body. Also I can see where the pain is in her body, including how deep it is.

and that:

recombinantsocks said:

You sincerely believe that you can do these things. I beg to differ.

I would use the word illusion rather than ability.

I think the situation is then that 'you believe' that Hendrow cannot or is not doing as he describes, and you are not aware that illusions do correspond with psychic sensibilities in terms of being pictographic/photographic representations of particular types of phenomena, such as for instance colours are in terms of being illusions of the mind ~ in that what we see around and about us is actually just black and white, or shades of grey. Whatever is experienced visually is both a presentation and a representation, as being then an illusion and by default an ability. 

recombinantsocks said:

None of the other forum members have this ability so it is not likely to be a result of autism.

Well I know of several autistic people with similar abilities and have already stated that I have them too, and I am a member of this forum also. Of course to the uninformed or inexperienced being psychic and autistic might seem not to correspond, but most of the long established religions state otherwise, as do particular fields of psychology as mentioned previously above. Further more:

From:

https://www.psychologytoday.com./blog/stuck/.../are-autistic-and-psychic-people-similar?

Anneli Rufus >(a certified Intuitive Gestalt Dialogue Method practitioner)<

Author of Stuck: Why We Can't (or Won't) Move on.

Are Autistic and Psychic People Similar?

After meeting autistic animal behaviour expert Temple Grandin and then reading Grendin's

bestselling books, Nancy Du Tertre realised that she and Grandin had a lot in common.

"I was immediately struck with how much the interior would of the autistic resembles

the interior world of the psychic," Du Tertre told me in an interview this week, "Like autistics,

psychics often tend to suffer a defect in reasoning power, can't explain how they just seem

to know things, cant find words to describe their experiences, and share a right

hemisphere ability to absorb the world holistically, visually, and extremely literally."

"It is this literalness of sensory experience which can seem, to the non-autistic and non-psychic

person, to be overwhelming, confusing and nonsensical. It is a far cry from our 'normal' logical,

sequential and rational world."

It would seem that for you then psychic phenomena is nonsensical. Obviously just because we are autistic ~ it does not mean that as such we all have psychic abilities beyond what is considered normal, i.e. knowing someone is looking at us, going to call us or is in mortal danger or dying, but being autistic does mean that the chances of having psychic or empathic abilities beyond the norm is by proportion more the case (i.e. seeing auras and auric embodiments) ~ in general terms when compared with neurotypicals.

Deepthought said:

It would seem that for you then psychic phenomena is nonsensical.

It all depends on definitions. If a psychic is a person that can pick up, subconsciously, on the collective historical actions, expressions (visible body language and verbal speech)  of a person in a way that they can't understand or verbalise then that is OK. NT people are often better at picking things up through expression and are often better in tune with other people. I suppose that a ND person may be better at some parts of this and might specialise and tune their ability in the solitude of their social isolation.

The problem comes when people speak of telepathy as a psychic power. I am deeply sceptical of any possibility that there are alternative ways of passing thoughts from one person to another that do not rely on one of the recognised physical transport mechanisms. We transmit our thoughts by speech, expression, by the accumulated trail of physical actions that we leave behind us when we make things, break things, move things around and organise things and so on. We do not have a way of passing our thoughts through walls to another person in another place unless there is some real mechanism to transmit that thought.

It seems to me that Hendrow may be picking up on other people's pains and emotions subconsciously but that the mental image that he has of that pain is too "real" to him and that he perhaps cannot distinguish between a mental image and a real image. The ability of the mind to construct very convincing images is very familiar to most people because dreams seem to be absolutely real when we are experiencing them. We know, however, when we wake up that we have been dreaming and we are happy to distinguish dreams and other imagined events from images that have a basis in reality. A problem comes when a person cannot distinguish between reality and imagined things. To be clear, some imagined visions can be very useful regardless of whether they were generated in a dream or while a person is conscious. Perhaps some people can slip between consciousness and sleep via a mixed up state where they are unclear about whether they are dreaming or having real experiences?

One other somewhat tangential observation is that Hendrow expresses a fear of mental illness and a reluctance to discuss things in terms of mental illness. I think that an inability to distinguish reality from imagination could be (but isn't necessarily!) so problematic as to require mental health considerations. Surely, on this forum, we should not be afraid of discussing mental health issues and concerns. I am aware that my own mind has been very disturbed at various points. For me, the issues passed by in the same way that a weather storm passes. I am aware that the mental health in my mind has different states on different days and I liken this to meteorological weather in that it can be sunny or stormy on different days. Perhaps it would help if we made a conscious effort to normalise discussions about mental health by discussing them more openly?

Deep Thought said:

Your rejection of statistical or percentile data would be acceptable if the crime reduction experiment only dealt with a small range of sub-districts or districts in Washington, D.C., rather than the collective.

Also your association of the Washington crime reduction study with the American sub-prime mortgage crash, this is about as reasonable as discrediting physics on account of atomic power disasters!

I don't reject statistic per se but I am wary of claims that X depends on Y when no causality test ( see http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Granger_causality ) is quoted. People were given Nobel prizes for their work on risk prior to the financial crash. It turned out that their statistic interpretation was not useful in trying to predict human behaviour even though they had built sophisticated statistical models. My suspicion is that the crime data is not really explicable by the stats. Other statistical models can be useful - but statistics is one of the truly difficult branches of maths that is more often abused than used sensibly. Hence the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics".

recombinantsocks said:

I think that you are saying that we are affected by everything in the universe and are therefore connected to everything else. This is true but there is no useful signal that can be divined from such co-existence.

I am not personally into divination myself, as my thing is transcendental meditation and self development, so if 'something' (whatever it may be) is meant to be known it will be so only when it is so. I am very very much a present tense sort of person myself.

As for how useful things are for you will depend upon your developmental tastes and your needs in life, just as other people's developing tastes and needs determines what they find to be individually fulfilling for themselves. 

recombinantsocks said:

We can take comfort from our shared existence but it does not mean that it is passing information to us except in the sense that we have shared history, common DNA etc which enables separated twins, for example, to be on the same wavelength in spite of their separation.

As well as the collective unconscious in genetic terms, there is also the collective consciousness in psychic terms, keeping in mind that consciousness is not awareness, and that psychic awareness involves the development of mental and physical experiences of consciousness and the material environment.

Hence for twins there is at least a strong genetic and cellular coherence in terms of their psychic entanglement individually, as applies to others also to different extents (physically, mentally and psychically) regarding collective and universal consciousness.

recombinantsocks said:

I do find the twins studies fascinating but I am also struck by the way that my thinking patterns are pre-programmed by my DNA. I have moments when I understand that I am responding in the same way as my father did even though he has been dead for some years - the influence persists through the complexity of the DNA that we had in common.

Actually ~ linguistic frameworks or language bases are genetically 'pre-conditioned'. The 'pre-programmed' aspect involves others (i.e. parents and so fourth) who have already learnt to speak, think and behave in formulated and consistent patterns according to others (i.e. their parents and so fourth).

recombinantsocks said:

I find that your case is not helped by such references to crime statistics. I find such items ludicrous. The "usual standards of social science" (like the understanding of economics that lead to the recent financial crashes) do not withstand the same scrutiny as the physics experiments that have measured gravity waves.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation and organisation of data.

Your rejection of statistical or percentile data would be acceptable if the crime reduction experiment only dealt with a small range of sub-districts or districts in Washington, D.C., rather than the collective.

Also your association of the Washington crime reduction study with the American sub-prime mortgage crash, this is about as reasonable as discrediting physics on account of atomic power disasters!

recombinantsocks said:

I enjoy listening to Laurie Taylor (Thinking Allowed) but I listen to him for entertainment and enlightenment rather than as a source of facts.

I like 'Classic FM' in the baroque sense of things, although my tastes in the operatic sense are minimal, whereas for entertainment classical music is instead enlightenment in the awareness sense of reliving choosey eidetic recollections, and so forth.

recombinantsocks said:

I have little use for this spiritual stuff in the same way that I have little use for fiction these days.

What you find useful other than the topics of spiritual reality and fictional compositions is up to you as an individual, and that which others likewise or otherwise identify with or relate to individually, that is equally as much up to them.

recombinantsocks said:

The real world contains well enough fantastic detail and fabulous stories to keep me entertained.

I find the realities of the world and the relativities of the mind-body relationship are that which keep me most enthusiastically intrigued. 

recombinantsocks said:

Each to their own?

Respectfully so most definitely yes ~ what with there being as many different ways to appreciate life as there are living things in life, or in more catchy terms perhaps, "Different strokes for different folks."

DeepThought said:

In terms of localised entanglement we are not, with non-localised entanglement though we are.

I think that you are saying that we are affected by everything in the universe and are therefore connected to everything else. This is true but there is no useful signal that can be divined from such co-existence. We can take comfort from our shared existence but it does not mean that it is passing information to us except in the sense that we have shared history, common DNA etc which enables separated twins, for example, to be on the same wavelength in spite of their separation. I do find the twins studies fascinating but I am also struck by the way that my thinking patterns are pre-programmed by my DNA. I have moments when I understand that I am responding in the same way as my father did even though he has been dead for some years - the influence persists through the complexity of the DNA that we had in common.

I find that your case is not helped by such references to crime statistics. I find such items ludicrous. The "usual standards of social science" (like the understanding of economics that lead to the recent financial crashes) do not withstand the same scrutiny as the physics experiments that have measured gravity waves. I enjoy listening to Laurie Taylor (Thinking Allowed) but I listen to him for entertainment and enlightenment rather than as a source of facts.

I have little use for this spiritual stuff in the same way that I have little use for fiction these days. The real world contains well enough fantastic detail and fabulous stories to keep me entertained. Each to their own?

recombinantsocks said:

But entangled particles must start out together before being separated.

Being entangled in one place together and also in another place apart, proves both local and non local entanglement. The entangled pairs in local terms are then the exception, and the exception proves thereby the rule of collective entanglement involving both local and non-local states of affairs.

So if you have ever wondered why, or did not know that twins are regularly sought for medicinal and therapeutic research ~ it is because the 'exception proves the general rule'. For example: one twin may react to a treatment, in the sense of feeling ill, and the other respond, in the sense of feeling well, thus contraindications and ameliorations are correlated for desired effectiveness amongst other individuals.

recombinantsocks said:

They talk about separated particles but it is implicit that the particles share a common origin.

The charge or frequency of the wave correlates with the charge or frequency of the particle ~ because of the shared zero-point energy constrained in it and it's field of emergence, as in turn correlates with the charges or frequencies of other waves and particles due to the shared zero-point energies that are constrained in their fields also ~ locally and non locally.

The implication is therefore that everything is more proportionally entangled with everything else in terms of dark energy and dark matter, and less proportionately in terms of standard matter and standard energy.

The teams of Fermi Large Area Telescope, and CERN Hadron Collider have essentially proven that standardised baryonic physics have metaphorically a tape-measure for measuring what a mileometer is needed for. The mileometer is still being designed, the prototype components are still being tested and developed, and the mileage beyond standardised baryonic measurements is definitely there.

recombinantsocks said:

I cannot be entangled with you because we were never as close as the photons or other particles that have shown entanglement.

In terms of localised entanglement we are not, with non-localised entanglement though we are.

recombinantsocks said:

(edit: See this article https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/entanglement-spooky-not-action-distance for a bit more of a readable explanation of how entanglement happens)

Interesting that localised entanglement through the fielded states of standard baryonic matter is being accepted.

With the exception proving the rule thing though, progressive orders of field interference and coherence patterns have and are being detected and experimented with ~ all through the sub-atomic, atomic and alto-atomic field spectrums, in each and every case.

recombinantsocks said:

I still don't see the need for all of these theories about people being able to share visions via entanglement. I haven't seen any evidence of a need for a psychic explanation for anything. People make predictions and the prediction comes true or not. The fact that a prediction was correct does not mean that there was psychic premonition at work, it just means that some guesses turn out to be correct and others turn out to be incorrect.

Well, in that some people do not see the need for televisions and all that, and as a result even live completely out in the wilderness, it does not exclude that other people find that they really need instead more socially stimulating involvements.

Obviously you live according to a more materially directed theory of life; the universe and everything, and I a more spiritually orientated one. Both varieties of awareness seem equally appropriate to me given the nature of things as I experience them, and as others report them.

As far as not needing to share in the affects and effects of quantum entanglement or cohesion goes, and matters of chance and all that, there has been a progression of studies done involving Transcendental Meditation Sidhas (T.M. Experts), and one of the studies became particular well known in the early to mid nineties, reported as follows:

Source: www.worldpeace.org/washington_crime_study.html

Washington crime study shows 23.3% drop in violent crime trend due to meditating group.

Washing crime study findings:

A two month national demonstration project conducted in Washington, D.C., showed how a coherence-creating group of TM Sihas can reduce crime and social stress and improve the effectiveness of government.

There was a carefully controlled scientific demonstration carried out between June 7 and July 30, 1993. The study involved a coherence group of TM-Sidhis who increased in number from 800 to a maximum of 4000, over the trial.

Before the project, violent crime had been steadily increasing during the first five months of the year.

A week or so after the study, violent crime (HRA) crime: Homicides, rapes and aggravated assaults, measured by FBI Uniform Crime Statistics) began decreasing and continued to drop until the end of the experiment.

Before the project the researchers had publicly predicted that the coherence group would reduce crime by 20%. This prediction had been ridiculed by the Chief of Police who asserted that the only thing that would decrease crime that much would be twenty inches of snow. In the end, the maximum decrease was 23.3% below the time series prediction for that period of the year. This significant reversal in the predicted crime trend occurred when the size of the group was at its largest in the final week of the project and during a blistering heat wave.

The statistical probability that this result could reflect chance variation in crime levels was less than 2 in 1 billion (p <000000002).

When the projected disbanded HRA crime began to rise again.

The research is extremely reliable by the usual standards of social science. As a result we know that the effects of the cohesion group can not be attributed to other possible cases, including temperature, precipitation, weekends, and police and community anticrime activities.

If anybody feels more inclined to consider this sort of metaphysical-quantum-physical interaction stuff, their is a video on Youtube titled, "What The Bleep Do We Know!" as included this study as a mention.

Deepthought said:

He was referring, specifically, to entanglement, the idea that two physically separated articles can have correlated properties, with values that are uncertain until they are measured

But entangled particles must start out together before being separated. They talk about separated particles but it is implicit that the particles share a common origin. I cannot be entangled with you because we were never as close as the photons or other particles that have shown entanglement. (edit: See this article https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/entanglement-spooky-not-action-distance for a bit more of a readable explanation of how entanglement happens)

I still don't see the need for all of these theories about people being able to share visions via entanglement. I haven't seen any evidence of a need for a psychic explanation for anything. People make predictions and the prediction comes true or not. The fact that a prediction was correct does not mean that there was psychic premonition at work, it just means that some guesses turn out to be correct and others turn out to be incorrect.

recombinantsocks said:

Dark matter may not be the missing piece, it is possible that the equations are wrong and that our understanding of space-time is wrong - perhaps space time is a particulate or quantum thing rather than a smooth continuum.

Well with E=MC2 not being a constant, and only applicable in atmospheric environments, any theories of space time using that the formula kind of need re-evaluating somewhat ~ as Warwick University proved a few years back.

recombinantsocks said:

Also, even if it turns out to be a correct theory, then its invisibility would mean that it could play no part in communicating between us.

I think then your sense of things and my sense of are particularly well covered by the proceeding article, which I have in terms of paragraphs excluded to an extent, and have rearranged the order of one (marked by asterisk/*) to reduce the chance here of tech-talk confusion or overload. Obviously you can go to source at 'phys.org', and read it all in its technical wholesomeness, or just ponder it in the less technical sense as follows:

NIST team proves 'spooky action at a distance' really is real

Einstein was wrong about at least one thing: There are, in fact, "spooky actions at a distance," as now proven by researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology {N.I.S.T).

Einstein used the term to refer to quantum mechanics, which describes the curious behaviour of the smallest particles of matter and light. He was referring, specifically, to entanglement, the idea that two physically separated articles can have correlated properties, with values that are uncertain until they are measured, Einstein was dubious, and until now, researchers have been unable to support it with near-total confidence. 

*The N.I.S.T. experiments are called Bell tests, so named because in 1964 Irish physicist John Bell showed there are limits to measurement correlations that can be ascribed to local, pre-existing (i.e. realistic) conditions. Additional correlations beyond those limits would require either sending signals faster than the speed of light, which scientists consider impossible, or another mechanism, such as quantum entanglement. 

As described in a paper posted online and submitted to Physical Review Letters (P.R.L.), researchers from N.I.S.T. and several other institutions created pairs of identical light particles or photons, and sent them to two different locations to be measured. Researchers showed the measured results not only were correlated, but also ~ by eliminating all other known options ~ that these correlations cannot be caused by the locally controlled, "realistic" universe Einstein thought we lived in. This implies a different explanation such as quantum entanglement. 

"You can't prove quantum entanglement, but local realism, or hidden local action, is incompatible with our experiment," N.I.S.T.'s Krister Shalm says. "Our results agree with what quantum mechanics predicts about the spooky actions shared by entangled particles."

So with baryonic science or sensibility being restricted to the realities of the material spectrum range; the remainder is as such 'in-visible' and therefore more intelligible for those who are more open experientially to the realities of the quantum or spiritual spectrum range. Hence I agree very much with the expression: "Once you have met one autistic person, you have met one autistic person," as in my mind applies to the physical, mental and psychical abilities of any one individual's character ~ whether or not they be divergent from or convergent to the nature of the individuality within themselves.

Spotty said said:

I love reading this thread, even if my head is not in a place where I can look into it further :)

:-)

Deepthought is pushing me into reading stuff that I wouldn't have read and it's making me think and try and work out how to respond to make him think and respond. There's nothing wrong with a bit of rigorous Socratic debate!

I love reading this thread, even if my head is not in a place where I can look into it further :)

I love reading this thread, even if my head is not in a place where I can look into it further :)

Spotty said said:

I love reading this thread, even if my head is not in a place where I can look into it further :)

:-)

Deepthought is pushing me into reading stuff that I wouldn't have read and it's making me think and try and work out how to respond to make him think and respond. There's nothing wrong with a bit of rigorous Socratic debate!