Theresa Cheung and Julia Mossbridge, "The Premonition Code"

I think Wargo's take on this is that people are precognising their later thoughts about what happened, and what might have happened, isn't it?

I think Wargo's take on this is that people are precognising their later thoughts about what happened, and what might have happened, isn't it?

That's a bit like Dean Radin's view that (possibly) the only psi effect is precognition, and tries to use that to explain everything else. (I don't agree.)

That's a bit like Dean Radin's view that (possibly) the only psi effect is precognition, and tries to use that to explain everything else. (I don't agree.)

Are you sure Dean Radin believes that? Certainly that's the theory that Edwin May and Sonali Marwaha propose. But if I understand correctly their theory includes telepathic or clairvoyant precognition of information that the experimental subject never directly perceives. I presume that's because they felt that was indicated by the experimental evidence. But it's hard to see how it would fit in with Eric Wargo's ideas.

I think Wargo's take on this is that people are precognising their later thoughts about what happened, and what might have happened, isn't it?

Based on the blog readings, which may have been editing in the actual book (I'm only on Chapter 2), his remarks regarding the block universe suggest that he believes there are precognitive episodes that cannot be changed.

I am admittedly curious how he squares this with evolution and quantum biology later in the book. After all if an organism was receiving messages about something it could not change wouldn't that be selected out? Or perhaps he thinks there are episodes of precognition that do serve as warnings and others that must happen...

Of course the biggest question IMO is how people think precognition happens on a selective level rather than what we might expect if Psi was an advantage. I often suspect Psi actually needs to be filtered out for an organism to survive, but I admit I might be wrong about that when looking at Carpenter's theory that Psi is always functioning at the subconscious level.

That's a bit like Dean Radin's view that (possibly) the only psi effect is precognition, and tries to use that to explain everything else. (I don't agree.)

It's odd to me that anyone can say which Psi power is the one from which all others derive since we'd need a better understanding of our reality right?

If, for example, PK turns on editing the "information space" of reality then it could accomplish all of the others. You use PK to "flip" the "bits" that make up everything.

OTOH, if all matter is alive, then perhaps telepathy can produce all the other effects. PK would be influencing the mental states of the particles making up whatever it is you are lifting. (cr. Eric Weiss proposes this as he is a panpsychic of sorts...panexperientialist IIRC...)

Admittedly remote viewing likely cannot explain the other Psi categories without adding something to it...

I've been down this route before. If we see a heavy ball rolling down a hillside towards a small child, we can predict that the child will be crushed, and thus forewarned, we can intervene and prevent this disaster. I think the idea of precognitive warnings is similar, we get a picture of a current trajectory, and its outcome - as it appears at that particular instant. Whether or not it actually takes place will depend on very many things, including, but not limited to, our own intervention.

What I'd love to see is someone actually give us some good summaries & data analysis on documented precognitive dreams. How many lead to aversion of death/suffering and how many did people feel were events they could not avoid no matter what they tried? Maybe Patrick McNamara has one?

Where I think Wargo faces an additional challenge is he doesn't think (AFAICTell) there is any need to assume anything is going on outside the brain. Everything related to this transfer of information is done through the brain's capacity as a "tesseract".

Based on the blog readings, which may have been editing in the actual book (I'm only on Chapter 2), his remarks regarding the block universe suggest that he believes there are precognitive episodes that cannot be changed.

Yes, I think he does believe that.

What I was getting at is that he emphasises that precognition is not direct foreknowledge of the future (in a clairvoyant sense) but foreknowledge of our own experience of the future - including our thoughts about what might have happened but didn't. I think that's his explanation for premonitions of disasters that are narrowly averted - that they reflect future thoughts about what might have been.

It's odd to me that anyone can say which Psi power is the one from which all others derive since we'd need a better understanding of our reality right?

If, for example, PK turns on editing the "information space" of reality then it could accomplish all of the others. You use PK to "flip" the "bits" that make up everything.

OTOH, if all matter is alive, then perhaps telepathy can produce all the other effects. PK would be influencing the mental states of the particles making up whatever it is you are lifting. (cr. Eric Weiss proposes this as he is a panpsychic of sorts...panexperientialist IIRC...)

Admittedly remote viewing likely cannot explain the other Psi categories without adding something to it...

Or as most of the evidence is statistical, it could perhaps reflect something different from any of the recognised psi effects - something like acausal correlations along the lines of Jung's synchronicity.

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page, here's an article by Julia Mossbridge in the [UK] Daily Mail of all places, advertising her book examining the evidence for precognition:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic...reams.html

Again courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - on his Skeptophilia blog, Gordon Bonnet writes about his reaction to Julia Mossbridge's article in the Daily Mail. He doesn't see any possible mechanism for telepathy or precognition, but he thinks that the claim is worthy of consideration because "a scientist of her stature" stands by it. So he has ordered a copy of her book:
http://www.skeptophilia.com/2019/02/reve...arrow.html

Courtesy of the SPR Facebook page - here's a long and rather criticial review of the book by Debra Lynne Katz published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration earlier this year:
https://www.academia.edu/38510539/Book_R...Mossbridge

"In conclusion, Cheung and Mossbridge have written an interesting, inspirational, and somewhat informative book, but in a tone and manner and with a level of care that fails to meet the norms and standards of scientific writing. Yet, they have subtitled their book The Science of Precognition, and are promoting their book as if it was about science. This is prompting scientific journals such as the JSE, along with the Journal of the Society  for Psychical Research (JSPR), to solicit reviews from writers who then find themselves in the highly awkward and unpleasant position of having to make less than positive statements about their own peer’s presentation of the material, or lack thereof."