3 ms·
> A previously healthy woman began to hear hallucinatory voices telling her to have a brain scan for a tumour. The prediction was true; she was operated on and
by tediousdemise 5y ago
> A previously healthy woman began to hear hallucinatory voices telling her to have a brain scan for a tumour. The prediction was true; she was operated on and had an uneventful recovery.
In some circles, phenomena like these are believed to be "spiritual energy downloads" from Source, which is a metaphor to explain an influx of knowledge from an unknown origin.
They typically provide confirmations about your life path, predict something that will occur, or provide much-needed inspiration. They can occur while you are awake or, more commonly, while you are dreaming.
They are sometimes accompanied by physical discomfort such as headaches or bodily aches and pains.
- costcopizza 5y agoPatiently awaiting the ever present "skeptics" to debunk this with "peer-reviewed" studies rather than just appreciate unique unexplainable things happening in our unique unexplainable world.
- tediousdemise 5y agoScience is great, and I love science, but it paradoxically has a way of limiting our understanding. Things that the scientific method cannot be successfully applied to are immediately written off by such skeptics. The rejection of anything not deemed scientific is a close-minded approach to understanding the universe. Take a look at WIMPs[0] (weakly interacting massive particles) and a slew of other theorized forms of matter and energy that we are currently incapable of detecting. It may be the case that there are physical phenomena we will never be able to detect. Does that make them false? No, that is a logical fallacy. I think the prefix pseudo- is used as a pejorative by dogmatic disciples of science. If they applied the prefix pseudo- to everything not supported by direct observation (rather than just things of a spiritual or metaphysical nature), then theoretical physics would have been branded as pseudophysics a long time ago. Any crackpot can write down some equations that the scientific community will except as a substitute for direct observation, without applying the term pseudo-. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_par...
- Ginden 5y ago> The inability to detect phenomena does not make them "false" or "fake", Certain philosophers, associated with scientific anti-realism, would argue it does make them "false" (or rather "undefined" or "null"). https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism https://www.britannica.com/topic/instrumentalism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
- tediousdemise 5y agoBy that definition, were bacteria fake until the microscope enabled them to be observed? Scientific anti-realism appears to be an easily refutable logical fallacy.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago> The rejection of anything not deemed scientific is a close-minded approach to understanding the universe. It's closed-minded by design. The human brain has an incredible ability to find patterns where none exist. Scientific methodology, is a way of obtaining a 1% false negative rate, to avoid an alternate approach of having a 90% false positive rate. It's a worthwhile tradeoff.
- everpresentskep 5y agoNo peer reviewed study needed, just check the actual publication history of the author, Ikechukwu Obialo Azuonye, coincidentally he's been pushing for the paranormal since before the incident.
- AshamedCaptain 5y agoBecause every doctor/academic out there is going to run to the journals with a paper titled "Patient came to my office claiming unicorn told him he had brain cancer; patient (and unicorn) turned out to be wrong".