You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: 29,000 Likes on Facebook. Financial Reward? $0.
Exactly. I recently posted this idea, and it gave insight to others: https://steemit.com/vegan/@robertgenito/steemit-test-sneaky-mind-manipulation-found-in-dictionaries
NATURALLY, I gave this comparison to my friends on Facebook. I'd like to inspire them to join a world of abundance :) Keep it up!
Nice post.
As to clairvoyance, I'd say "supposed" is valid there since it has so far been tried and tested and found wanting. That said, it would surprise me at all if we are picking up on various things subconsciously which give us insight as to what might happen next, but my studies of how the brain works strongly convince me we find meaning even when there isn't any.
Tried and tested and found wanting....as in lacking? If that's what you're saying, look into Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ. Your mind will be in for a treat! :) Clairvoyance is proven (statistically), the CIA takes it very serious, there's even a law forbidding remote viewing on US citizens, etc. Public school systems would say otherwise :D
And thank you for enjoying the post!
Via http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
Heheh. I'm probably not going to spend much time looking into this one.
I gotta laugh at wikipedia now. My friend, there's tons of ignorance there, and i am proof of the exact opposite of much of wikipedia's ignorance :)
I don't know if you have experience with this, but it is extremely difficult to change the status quo of thought on wikipedia. When it comes to limitless topics like remote viewing, fruitarianism, manifestation, or topics of value to censor, there's simply a strategy of people lined up to continually undo your edits without penalty, and without the need for them to discuss the topic in the Talk section. You will need equally as many people to UNDO your undo--this keeps you from being silenced ("banned"). How fair is that? How open to new information is that? It's not. It's a great example of cognitive dissonance, and it's upholding dogma and resisting change.
Wikipedia is only a collection of what we believe to be true...it is NOT an account of what we have yet to discover. When it comes to wikipedia, don't be a fool.
Russel Targ did a response to the community of wikipedia. I have experience with exactly what Russel Targ is talking about. It's annoying, and it's why I no-longer read wikipedia unless I'm referencing something I can easily find in a dated university book.
http://www.espresearch.com/russell/russell-targ-response-to-wikipedia.shtml
I didn't link to Wikipedia.
Sorry, I do not mean "wikipedia.org", I mean mediawiki, the underlying platform which makes things difficult. Btw that's not enough time to read Russell Targ's response :) Enjoy! He's one of the top American researchers on this. Great information is also available from the top Russian researcher on this, and there are also countless witness testimonies and interviews on this. I also have experience with it sooooo :D no reason to lie here, just trying to help your understanding of this universe we live in!
Okay, but that sounds a lot like this. Interesting read though. Thanks for that link.
Np! (i edited the above reply) I'm not looking to use any fallacy stuff. I'm sharing my experience with the platform. I am also a fan of empirical studies :D No argument here, my friend! Thank you for posting your valuable input for people to also consider and understand!
Fun site...ty for the link :)
Btw, read that first sentence on your link again, and then read the first paragraph sentence here again :D https://steemit.com/vegan/@robertgenito/steemit-test-sneaky-mind-manipulation-found-in-dictionaries
Are we back to my original comment again?
we both got the point here :)