On the Validity of Premonitions

Arisaig wrote: I can imagine you're refering to faiths with no evidence when it comes to this statement. What then of those that believe in something not because they're lying to themselves, but because they legitimatly belive in it? Is it still self deception? Or is it another branch on the path that one walks when pursuing knowledge?

Belief based on faith is unfounded belief. When we experience something we can only know the facts of that experience. Our journey then becomes one to explore those facts and use logic and reason and critical thinking to arrive at a place that is as close to the truth of that experience as possible. Sometimes that conclusion is simply that "we don't know". but that still does not end the journey. It just becomes a milestone on the journey. So yes, I would say the exploration could be considered a branch on the path to pursuing knowledge.

However If we arrive at a place void of any explanation, it becomes disingenuous to then conjure something not in evidence and then jump from our original position of ignorance to a position of belief in this something as a cause of the experience. With no evidence or facts to back up the existence of that something we go from a position of simple ignorance to one of self deception. To say, "well I cant think of a better explanation so the experience must have been driven by "X" supernatural cause" is just a logical fallacy.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote: I can imagine you're refering to faiths with no evidence when it comes to this statement. What then of those that believe in something not because they're lying to themselves, but because they legitimatly belive in it? Is it still self deception? Or is it another branch on the path that one walks when pursuing knowledge?

Belief based on faith is unfounded belief. When we experience something we can only know the facts of that experience. Our journey then becomes one to explore those facts and use logic and reason and critical thinking to arrive at a place that is as close to the truth of that experience as possible. Sometimes that conclusion is simply that "we don't know". but that still does not end the journey. It just becomes a milestone on the journey. So yes, I would say the exploration could be considered a branch on the path to pursuing knowledge.

However If we arrive at a place void of any explanation, it becomes disingenuous to then conjure something not in evidence and then jump from our original position of ignorance to a position of belief in this something as a cause of the experience. With no evidence or facts to back up the existence of that something we go from a position of simple ignorance to one of self deception. To say, "well I cant think of a better explanation so the experience must have been driven by "X" supernatural cause" is just a logical fallacy.

A very logical stand on this. I guess sometimes there is a better answer than stating that x is the actions of y deity or whatnot. I guess it's really just my upbringing and viewpoint that gives me faith in something more than what we can readily prove. It may be illogical for some, and perhaps it is. Thank you for your input though, you worded your points quite excellently.

I guess it depends on the scope someone would be making an assertion of truth, as all truth has a degree of belief. And I don't think there is anything wrong with people trying to work with these concepts to experience them or try to experience them (safely) - that is where the usefulness of these discussions is most IMO.

Rather then asserting them to be absolutely true, or from the other direction asserting they are baseless and delusion, its a topic of inquiry and experimentation. I for one have had many premonitions directly serve me as concise forewarning of immanency and accuracy, so its not necessarily trying to deceive oneself but rather trying to work with actual experience and experimenting with concepts and practices to that effect.

It's great to be objectively rational, I think its a requisite, but it seems unnecessary to limit our phenomenological pursuits to it. Empiricism works great with machines we can comprehend, but these old rigs we inhabit are a bit above our pay grade at times.

Adder wrote: ... trying to work with actual experience and experimenting with concepts and practices to that effect.

Empiricism works great with machines we can comprehend, but these old rigs we inhabit are a bit above our pay grade at times.

Pick one. Either you are arguing that one's experience is where we start from or you insist that empiricism only works well on machines unlike ourselves.
Not every time there are different perspectives is there a middle ground, and nor is it indeed the most accurate assessment if it exists. I'm no psychologist, I don't know what constitutes a delusion and what doesn't, but it is not honest to assert as fact that which is not even to oneself evident to be accurate. There is also no shame in calling baseless what is in fact baseless according to the current state of our knowledge. Just because the experiments consistently fail to show what some have convinced themselves they should does not mean that we just need more data before drawing conclusions. If anything, that sounds like trying to withhold a perfectly reasonable judgement until such time that the desired conclusion can be favoured and if that doesn't sound like a biased, unfair approach, I have nothing to add. There is nothing scary about being mistaken and nothing disgraceful about changing one's mind once new evidence demands we do. We haven't searched every inch of the North pole at every time during every year and including its counterparts in other possible worlds to conclude that Santa's hideout does in fact not exist at all. I'm happy to claim that for now nonetheless, and be proven wrong later. At least that's dealing honestly with what we have at our avail. To paint the playing field as level instead is not.

Gisteron wrote:

Adder wrote: ... trying to work with actual experience and experimenting with concepts and practices to that effect.

Empiricism works great with machines we can comprehend, but these old rigs we inhabit are a bit above our pay grade at times.

Pick one. Either you are arguing that one's experience is where we start from or you insist that empiricism only works well on machines unlike ourselves.
Not every time there are different perspectives is there a middle ground, and nor is it indeed the most accurate assessment if it exists. I'm no psychologist, I don't know what constitutes a delusion and what doesn't, but it is not honest to assert as fact that which is not even to oneself evident to be accurate. There is also no shame in calling baseless what is in fact baseless according to the current state of our knowledge. Just because the experiments consistently fail to show what some have convinced themselves they should does not mean that we just need more data before drawing conclusions. If anything, that sounds like trying to withhold a perfectly reasonable judgement until such time that the desired conclusion can be favoured and if that doesn't sound like a biased, unfair approach, I have nothing to add. There is nothing scary about being mistaken and nothing disgraceful about changing one's mind once new evidence demands we do. We haven't searched every inch of the North pole at every time during every year and including its counterparts in other possible worlds to conclude that Santa's hideout does in fact not exist at all. I'm happy to claim that for now nonetheless, and be proven wrong later. At least that's dealing honestly with what we have at our avail. To paint the playing field as level instead is not.

I don't have to pick one, as that is my point. You don't need to have proof of evidence to use tools to try and gather evidence. To argue otherwise is a cop out to rule out anything which has no empirical evidence as foundation. My point was the tools at hand don't suit the machine we're using it on, and that this simple fact should be no reason for people not to try. It has played a part in my whole adult life and while I haven't been able to predict lottery numbers, it certainly has served me very well on occasion - but its not necessarily easy or simple. It's more like a 2 way relationship, or even a 3 way!!

If empiricism is as a method unfit to evaluate things about the human being, than what ever experiences with "premonitions" you had are irrelevant. If your experience is to have any weight in this discussion, then evidently empricism is not unfit as an approach in it. To rule things out because they are based on nothing is not a cop out, it's just a bit hasty, sometimes, but then nobody here is doing it, so what gives.

Gisteron wrote: If empiricism is as a method unfit to evaluate things about the human being, than what ever experiences with "premonitions" you had are irrelevant. If your experience is to have any weight in this discussion, then evidently empricism is not unfit as an approach in it. To rule things out because they are based on nothing is not a cop out, it's just a bit hasty, sometimes, but then nobody here is doing it, so what gives.

I did say 'at times', so there is no reason to equate that as being an unfit method. It might be difficult, but what else is there to pursue it? The point being danced around is for you and some others perhaps its 'nothing', and for others it's not nothing. So my reply was saying something along the lines of that empirical evidence is not required to pursue something - given the lack of it seemed to be a counter argument to the validity of premonitions. So in effect, the same sentence you say nobody is coping out of it could be interpreted to be indeed coping out of it because you assert it's nothing.... if your making that claim based on lack of empirical evidence hehe.

This is going to sound counter intuitive for the logical thinker, but proof is the destroyer of faith. The point of having faith is choosing to believe in something without evidence of its existence. If you have proof, then there is no choice. You have to believe because it is proved.

So if someone chooses not to believe that is their choice.

I cannot see the Force. But I choose to believe in it. Why? First, I believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just means we haven’t found a way to identify the evidence. But… because I believe, I see evidence where others see coincidence, or chance.

So faith is a matter of choice. And not a matter of proof… as I believe it to work.

Wescli Wardest wrote: This is going to sound counter intuitive for the logical thinker, but proof is the destroyer of faith. The point of having faith is choosing to believe in something without evidence of its existence. If you have proof, then there is no choice. You have to believe because it is proved.

So if someone chooses not to believe that is their choice.

I cannot see the Force. But I choose to believe in it. Why? First, I believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just means we haven’t found a way to identify the evidence. But… because I believe, I see evidence where others see coincidence, or chance.

So faith is a matter of choice. And not a matter of proof… as I believe it to work.

And you don't see any problems with making oneself believe what one knows one has no reasons to believe? How do you avoid making choices informed by your beliefs?

Gisteron wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: This is going to sound counter intuitive for the logical thinker, but proof is the destroyer of faith. The point of having faith is choosing to believe in something without evidence of its existence. If you have proof, then there is no choice. You have to believe because it is proved.

So if someone chooses not to believe that is their choice.

I cannot see the Force. But I choose to believe in it. Why? First, I believe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just means we haven’t found a way to identify the evidence. But… because I believe, I see evidence where others see coincidence, or chance.

So faith is a matter of choice. And not a matter of proof… as I believe it to work.

And you don't see any problems with making oneself believe what one knows one has no reasons to believe? How do you avoid making choices informed by your beliefs?

It is not a matter of forcing oneself into believing in something one has no reason to believe in. Faith is faith.

Below is a selection from Lesson One of the IP:



Faith is faith because it cannot be proven. Does that mean one seeks to prove it? Sometimes yes, other times, and more often than not, no they do not.

Still making choices off of faith is something that must be monitored, lest it turn into extremism, or even worse, something akin to the SJW movement.

Beliefs are held by everybody, so one cannot deny that belief fuels every decision. I can buy the salad at McDonalds because I beleive it to be better for me, when in actual fact it probably isn't.

Again, faith is faith. No one forces themselves to beleive in anything, it is something you feel and that calls to you.