At what point does abstract analysis become psychic?

So thinkers....

At what point does analysis and vision become "psychic" rather then deterministic probability?

Is there a line to be drawn in the sand so to speak in which we begin to gauge what it is exactly that psychic ability is?

It seems to me like probability and mathematical pattern analysis and computation play a large roll in psychic ability but does it reach beyond that into the realm of the abstract in which we tap into a power source knowledge center?

onequestion
So thinkers....





It seems to me like probability and mathematical pattern analysis and computation play a large roll in psychic ability but does it reach beyond that into the realm of the abstract in which we tap into a power source knowledge center?

Nope!

reply to post by onequestion


If you gather enough data points, say over a life time, your subconscious can mix and match them in various ways at high speeds. You will have a "feeling" that you should act a certain way or that something will happen. If you had data on everything and enough processing speed you could potentially know everything that would likely happen, still in probabilities, but as close to 100% psychic as you could ever be.

What do you want psychic to mean though?

I do a lot of abstract thinking which mainly involves the law of analogy. Everything is the same thing if you compare it correctly. I can find out things that are likely true using that, but I don't call that psychic.

I think the line is drawn when you get knowledge without any connections at all. Sometimes I will hear someone screaming my name and I run to help them, only to find they never opened their mouth, but that they did in fact need me. I have dreamed the future. But then again, are those extrapolations from under the surface?

Truthfully I don't believe anything is separate, so nothing is psychic at that level. Words start failing when objects and subjects are hard to define. It is the I that is us knowing.

Or like John Lennon said paraphrased. "Stare at a flower long enough and all answers are in it. It's just there, like a profound whatever."

You're asking about prediction of the future.

If your car gets 20mpg and hold 20 gallons, anyone could predict that you will run out of gas in about 400 miles. Simple analysis.

If a predictor says you will run out of gas on a bridge in a town you don't routinely visit while slowing to pick up a beautiful hitchhiker--now THAT--that would be psychic.

Ability to predict the unpredictable.

"Prophets" I have seen work do just use observation and analysis to make broad predictions--there's other words for these jokers.

reply to post by KnightLight

What do you want psychic to mean though?

Here is where it begins for me...

I think the line is drawn when you get knowledge without any connections at all.

onequestion
So thinkers....

At what point does analysis and vision become "psychic" rather then deterministic probability?

Is there a line to be drawn in the sand so to speak in which we begin to gauge what it is exactly that psychic ability is?

It seems to me like probability and mathematical pattern analysis and computation play a large roll in psychic ability but does it reach beyond that into the realm of the abstract in which we tap into a power source knowledge center?

Psychic is from my point of view manifesting synchronicity where you can know and both send and receive information if the channel is allowed to be clear but can also be distorted by ego projection.

I have had some dealings with people who call themselves psychic/reader and I have noticed that their expectations cloud information being sent as to being received. They make assumptions on what the information was that is wrong since they are expecting the information to be about something even if it is not. For instance one person got information where I knew what was sent but since she expected all her information was about past life she will give information that just makes you think she is not a psychic. It is not that she did not receive the message. It is that her mind distorts the message when she processes it before she tells it to you.

I also had one instant where I was sending without the psychic knowing where the psychic in word said exactly the right words, but the funny thing is that she did not know the true meaning of the words, but thought she was saying something else since she do not know the context of the words.

I find that really funny that psychics can be so totally unaware of the real information they give to people by synchronicity.

I also have had a time where the psychics are blocked since they are not allowed to know things even if I was open to share it if she could read it.

11:11 is a typical synchronicity that is a psychic recurring observation that in itself cannot be deterministic probability since it is the unconscious in synchronicity with all reality that creates the observation for the mind to notice.

reply to post by onequestion


This is actually a really good question that I've stewed about many a time. I'm an extremely analytical lifelong observer of human behavior and the number of times and I've been viewed as being potentially psychic many a time by those who stick around me long enough. Most of what I do is actually logically very un-psychic and pure analysis. However, like Knightlight, I've had a few instances where what I've said/done has skipped out of ye olde scientific logic where there has been zero overt connection. Those few instances are a lot harder to explain and almost always entail someone near and dear to me. Knowledge of a car accident that has taken place, a stroke in a loved one several hundred miles away, the death of a loved one that is a thousand miles away--that kind of thing tends to defy that analytical predictability as the information to gain that assessment is often very much incomplete.

Mothers knowing their child has perished, dogs knowing their owners are coming home--these things are really very interesting to me. My pet theory on this is somewhat like Rupert Sheldrake's morphic resonance but without that "collective consciousness" type of spin to it. There's been some study of how women who live together will have their menstrual cycles eventually synchronizing. If we know that some synchronization can occur, then in what other ways can we "synchronize" up with those who are closest to us? We know those people well so who is to say that there isn't some sort of mental synchronization that takes place? If thought within the brain is basically a chemical electrical process that produces a wave, then could it be possible that, through synchronization over long term proximity, we become attuned to certain people and set to receive those waves? If a trauma occurs, then one can very well imagine that brain lighting up like a firecracker and possibly sending out a much stronger pulse than normal.

That's my theory and it wouldn't dictate that there is any sort of specialness to a specific individual either. It'd be something that could be something that everyone is capable of if they simply listened.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

We know those people well so who is to say that there isn't some sort of mental synchronization that takes place?

I feel like the universe is 1 living network and that everything relys on everything else for existence. Being aware of that network can lead to moment of awareness maybe, those moments can be psychic or synchronistic maybe.