Psychometry

I agree with the scientific method as well, but I have to acknowledge its limited by the tools of measurement and as such understanding of those tools. By that definition we do not have a scientific understanding of the subjective experience - because we can not predict/replicate it. We can relate it as individual observation of experience which gets us half way (if believed truthful), but that is not the full scientific method. AFAIK

And since we all as humans have this subjective experience I think its fair to consider that people are going to work with what is at hand..... so the only real problem I have is when people claim that something unscientific is 'within science', because that would just be plain wrong.

But I don't mind when its said for example that something unscientific exists, because for them it may have, or they may believe for others it may have. But it really depends on the context something like that is said, because if it clearly implies a scientific association then its probably misleading and makes the poster look a bit batty - and that might be true, or I might have misinterpreted it, or they may have written it poorly.

It all comes back to the use of language and intended meaning, because working with mental constructs needs its own language and it may at times seem to overlap with scientific concepts - but that is no reason for science folk to get uppity. I consider myself a science folk tho, so perhaps its about where the discussion is had as well. In this forum the Open Discussion is broad so its sorta ok, but in the Science area it would not be appropriate, while in a Metaphysical area everything might be quantum this and string that :huh: just because its about exploring relationships between concepts etc.

Psychometry should be easy to prove though, so if it has not - then it probably is not, IMO.

My most interesting meta-physical thang is dream interpretation for future prediction, and that is a massive pain in the parse, having to wade through so much symbology, avoiding confirmation bias, and even making the dream state consistent in some manner in regards to accessibility. I only bother because I've had some outstanding results which met my strict conditions but scientific method is not yet possible - yet efforts continue :silly:

For those of you on here who CAN use this skill, please contact Interpol:
https://www.interpol.int/Forms/Crimes_against_children

They can use any help they can get in locating children abducted by pedophiles and sex trafficers.

Is psychometry admissable evidence?

Rex wrote: Is psychometry admissable evidence?

It doesn’t have to be. If I am an agent who gets stuck and some guy can give me a decent lead more than half the time, I’ll take it.

I wonder why we don’t see more of these...? :whistle:

Even were psychometry and the like possible. Even assuming it takes time and practice, as with anything it should become more refined over time. Take things like the IP here. Its contantly being worked on and refined to give the best results on a more consistent basis to a wider audience. Yet this is not the case with such practices like psychometry....why?

If it is that rare and only for a select few with what can only amount to a genetic lottery gift then it is still relatively useless. To jedi and anyone else.

Any claims of such, juxtaposition of science and religion, and appeals to older civilizations really do not matter. Either it can be done, or it cannot.

Wanting evidence of extraordinary claims is not denial or small minded. It shows a willingness to learn....if there is indeed anything to be taught.

Trust in god, but tie your camel.

Then there was the monk who told the buddha that he had meditated for 10 years and could walk on water across the river to which the buddha replied "the ferry only costs 5 cents."

Im done with this conversation.

If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?
Sam Harris

I think it makes an interesting Jedi v Sith paradigm if one wanted to engineer concepts of self sacrifice and advantage seeking into models of decision making. In this context of approaching the unknown; a Jedi approach might limit itself to known capability depth and direct their efforts at the extents of its breadth rather then pushing outside its envelope ie work within scientific paradigms. While in comparison a Sith approach might not limit itself to capability depth, and as a result incur greater risk for greater potential reward :silly:

I think some are actually afraid of such power existing. I mean if you didn't believe in any of it and all of a sudden know that spells, telekinesis, telepathy, astral projection are very real, that would inspire others but also frighten them. Because they do not fully understand it and now think to themselves "Oh wait, what if there really ARE people who can cast curses on me, or take away my energy:"

Because once you realize that such power exists and don't understand it, you may automatically think about all the bad things that can be done with that power

Don't know if it's just me, but I have not encountered too many people who believe and practice magic and then all of a sudden stop, saying it's nonsense (Unless they are referring to weird D&D hardcore nerds who act like they have magic but really don't and they may call THAT nonsense, but not magic itself) but I have seen plenty of those who didn't believe in it at all and once they actually research it and practice it, they begin to realize it's very real. And I am referring to spiritual practices not just religion as there are many that have been religious and then stopped because they no longer believe in it, want to rebel against parents, ect. whatever the reason is but you can practice spiritual techniques without following a specific religion.

To answer the point on existence or not. People are practicing and replicating work with "astral" essence. People project, travel, interact, and explore in it. It's been going on for a very long time. Mainstream Academia can't say there are no examples of these things being plausibly real without being in denial.. asking for examples is reasonable and encouraged, as I've said before..

If certain researchers can theorize on alternative dimensions. An astral plane isn't too much of a stretch from that..

To answer the original question of this thread. Psychometry might probably be best described as a form of astral sight. Being able to sense and focus on that energy. Such as "seeing" the auras of objects, creatures, people, or possibly astral beings. An greater opening of the mind's eye.. in this case, psychometry would probably be like "seeing" impressions left on the auras of objects by a being through some form of intense emotion or attachment, in practice.

You'd probably have to have done considerable work with your auras in order to make use of it.. or somehow be naturally inclined due to work done in previous lives. Even then though, what impressions you would pick up would depend entirely on the person(s) involved.

Case: An attacker enters a home intent on a brutal and hateful murder. The victim however is able to put up a fight. If they are able to unmask and see their attacker before being killed. You might also see a flash of that intense moment as imprinted on the aura of the scene..

There are several different ways this could go. Do the impressions dissipate over time? Is this relevant to hauntings? Could this actually be applied to investigation methods?.. More study would be required imo..

I don't think we should fear stuff like this. And I don't think it's exclusive to certain people. We just might be better built than we thought..

Uzima Moto wrote: If certain researchers can theorize on alternative dimensions. An astral plane isn't too much of a stretch from that..

They are certain, so.. who are we talking about here, specifically? Also, alternative dimensions to what? To pressure? To time? To length?
Look, you are doing yourself no favours by referencing matters of science in support of your woo, let alone comparing them to it. As I said earlier, it works well enough when there is noone around who understands the terms you throw around, but it can only ever bite you in the back if someone is.

The falsifiability criterion cuts deeper than you'd think. Because of it, you see, it is very easy to tell if someone talking about or at times even merely referencing science actually knows any. Because there are ways to be wrong about it, and there are ways to spew incoherent gibberish, too. That's how we can tell, for instance, when Lt. La Forge is reporting on technical details about an engine malfunction, that techno-babble is almost always all it is, and that it's purpose is entertaining the viewer, not informing them about plausible or even possible future technologies. With woo, however, there is nothing of the sort. I was going to say that it isn't as obvious when someone oblivious to it speaks falsehoods about it, but then if you think about it, really, not only would that not be obvious, rather it would be entirely undetectable. Because should a claim about some astral plane, or auras, or telekinesis be too fantastical for you to buy it up front, then it will be "something you just haven't experienced, but I have, and if you try and believe hard enough, no doubt eventually you will, too". Noone can actually show that anything stated about such things might be inaccurate or why, because every statement has an excuse to render it untouchable, and none have a definitive fail condition.

Gisteron wrote: [
Look, you are doing yourself no favours by referencing matters of science in support of your woo, let alone comparing them to it. As I said earlier, it works well enough when there is noone around who understands the terms you throw around, but it can only ever bite you in the back if someone is.

The falsifiability criterion cuts deeper than you'd think. Because of it, you see, it is very easy to tell if someone talking about or at times even merely referencing science actually knows any.

Well, thankfully in this instance scientists describe parallel universes almost exactly how one would describe the astral plane. A universe that exists apart from our physical perception. Now, followers of this theory may describe it in different terms. However, they have less experience with these universes than the average adept has with the astral. Because I don't think any scientist has seen one of their parallel universes. So i wouldn't hold them as the sole authority on this issue. As some might..

Look, I can tell when someone fundamentally misunderstands esoteric matters. They are usually the ones most vocal against it. The funny part is when they start describing in "scientific terms" mysteries the mystic tradition has already encountered.. like parallel universes.. but then claim the esoteric realities they just described don't exist..

I think it is a DEEP seated fear.. because theoretically, the astral world contains many things that would be beyond our control using conventional means.. material science puts us in control of our world. Something we've just recently mastered. Nobody wants to learn of an entirely new reality that influences us but is beyond our reach..