Berserk2 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2014 at 11:03pm:


But who is perceiving the simulation of Uncle Peter, doesn't that require a thinker? Sounds like solipsism; the idea that only oneself exists. Also, if as Popper claims, all theories need to be falsifiable to qualify as such and Doc is right that super-psi isn't testable; then it doesn't make it as a theory!

Hi Don,

Actually I'm my favorite astral adept!  Certainly we can learn from other's knowledge and experience, but not much tops having your own experience.

I believe TC indicates there are numerous possibilities.  One is as you mentioned, gleaning information from a "database" of information or super-psi.  Another is actual contact with the deceased or contact with a "helper/guide" that gleans information and essentially "feeds" data to you such as a data stream, which can include visuals.  If this is true, then of course, it's not all super-psi.  To me, the main question is how does one tell the difference?  I think each instance of contact can be examined for the most likely answer, still, I'm not sure we can always discern the difference even with our own experiences, much less from the experiences of others.

A couple of my grandkids like to watch game shows and they are always amazed at how many questions I can get right, so this summer I've been showing them how to access information that you have no previous "conscious" knowledge of.  It's been a fun way to teach the kids how to use their God given abilities to access universal knowledge, which can have some obvious differences from actual contact with another being.

One can access information through super-psi and receive the information in a visual form, such as seeing Uncle Pete.  In this case one would receive information about Uncle Pete's history and/or future probabilities or perhaps even Uncle Pete's actualized present moment, however, Uncle Pete would not possess free will choice if the information were coming from a database of universal knowledge.  The tricky part for discernment is that Uncle Pete could act just like Uncle Pete and unless you knew every detail about Uncle Pete's life, it would difficult to tell if Uncle Pete were acting with free will choice or if you were simply viewing an aspect of Uncle Pete's life.

The non-physical is teaming with life and at least in my experience the majority of contacts where two-way communication has taken place, other beings when visual to me, have appeared as radiant beacons of light that emanate the most beautiful feelings of awe and love. Is this a common way for beings/helpers/guides to appear? I don't know.  That's simply been my experience.  I've also had communication with another that was unseen, but heard and felt just the same.  Someone else may have actual contact and communicate freely with another individual and perceive that being differently.  As Matthew mentioned, we all create our own reality to a certain extent based on our personal knowledge, understanding, beliefs, fears, etc., but I also think other beings, at least in the non-physical can create a reality for us if need be, or we, from a higher level of being can manifest a reality and experience it at the same time.  btw... great posts Matthew!

K

Super-psi seems like a new aspect of humanism--it's very centered on human brain's or mind's abilities.  If someone wants to create a new name for their new perception of psi, fine and good, but we needn't accept it as an ultimate truth or deceit.

A contrasting view of psi is that it is our name for the trails of consciousness each life leaves, trails that are accessible to all who can focus upon them. Unfortunately each of us humans has limited focus. Some names for those limited ranges of information that can be gleaned from psi are spiritism, ESP, NDE, etc. Most perceivers of psi get so caught up in their early experiences of a limited range that they do not go on to explore or study other areas or frequencies of psi.

An Ultimate Source of the infinitely ever-expanding psi-web has to be very glorious. We human individuals are just little blips sometimes following some major strands, sometimes creating our own micro-areas of netting. Or so says my limited Interpreter (-: