New documentary on remote viewing

[Eugene I.]

I have personally had the same experience and believe it to me somewhat remarkable but not supernatural.

People from a common background and history engaged in a common activity are likely to think/say things that are similar.

There is a difference between "similar" and "literal/exact"

[Jim Cross]

I have personally had the same experience and believe it to me somewhat remarkable but not supernatural.

People from a common background and history engaged in a common activity are likely to think/say things that are similar.

There is a difference between "similar" and "literal/exact"

People from a common background and history engaged in a common activity are likely to think/say things that are exactly the same as others would expect

We also must consider how often someone might say something similar but have it perceived as exactly what was anticipated.

[Freefrommainstream]

Maybe you should take a look at Rupert Sheldrakes website and his article

I personally know for a fact that telepathy is real: once in a while I get the knowledge of exactly and literally what my family members are going to say before they say it. It's like I can "hear" in my mind the phrases before they say it, and I also sense their meanings and mindsets. But it happens sporadically and rarely and without my control, so there would be no way to prove it experimentally in a controlled experiment.

You have an interesting logo, are you a Marxist

I am a communist, my opinion is that communism can only function with idealism. Materialism and political ideology results in a moral catastrophe. Capitalism is a result of absolute materialism and greed, we always want more and more and more...Communism never functioned in our new society because our society is extremely materialistic, for example Pol Pot was an anti intellectual who wanted to destroy society, love and moral in order to achieve a working materialist "utopia". Stalin, Mao... were complete idiots that killed in order to achieve their own egoistic pseudo-utopia. Marx said "Religion is opium for the people", religion is only senseless if the metaphors are taken too seriously and problems like "Who was the mother of father god " and there you have it.. Infinite regress. Because atheists do not understand metaphors and have a naive stone age understanding of philosophy and metaphors they will think religious people are a problem ( Sorry this is an insult to the flinstones). So we need to establish a new form of communism and a new form of society

[Freefrommainstream]

I have personally had the same experience and believe it to me somewhat remarkable but not supernatural.

People from a common background and history engaged in a common activity are likely to think/say things that are similar.

There is a difference between "similar" and "literal/exact"

People from a common background and history engaged in a common activity are likely to think/say things that are exactly the same as others would expect

We also must consider how often someone might say something similar but have it perceived as exactly what was anticipated.

When I did not know Bernardo I had the exact same thoughts as him. Telepathy is a very helpful thing, sometimes when I concentrate on mathematic formulas, very complex formulas come into my mind ( I am not even a mathematician).

[Eugene I.]

I am a communist, my opinion is that communism can only function with idealism. Materialism and political ideology results in a moral catastrophe. Capitalism is a result of absolute materialism and greed, we always want more and more and more...Communism never functioned in our new society because our society is extremely materialistic, for example Pol Pot was an anti intellectual who wanted to destroy society, love and moral in order to achieve a working materialist "utopia". Stalin, Mao... were complete idiots that killed in order to achieve their own egoistic pseudo-utopia. Marx said "Religion is opium for the people", religion is only senseless if the metaphors are taken too seriously and problems like "Who was the mother of father god " and there you have it.. Infinite regress. Because atheists do not understand metaphors and have a naive stone age understanding of philosophy and metaphors they will think religious people are a problem ( Sorry this is an insult to the flinstones). So we need to establish a new form of communism and a new form of society

Communism can only be realized in a highly developed economy with abundance of goods where there would be no competition for resources. This is exactly what Marx taught actually, but his mistake was the assumption that a socialist society can still be built before such abundance happens as a "transient" state between capitalism and communism. However, when there is competition for goods and resources but no capitalist market, the government has to regulate the distribution of goods and resources, and this can only be accomplished in a totalitarian social system. This is why so far every country that tried to develop communism or socialism ended up in some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship. But when the right time comes and the economy will be mature enough, the transition to communism will happen peacefully and naturally. When the whole industry will be based on robot's labor, there will be abundance of goods and services to such an extent that using money will make no economic sense anymore. I think by that time materialism as a worldview will also become outdated and pretty much extinct. But before that happens we would have to cope with capitalism, because socialist dictatorship is still much worse than capitalist democracy (believe me, I was raised in USSR, it was way worse than US/European capitalism even with all its current problems), and to everyone who disagrees I would recommend to go and enjoy living in North Korea to prove it.

[TriloByte]

Communism can only be realized in a highly developed economy with abundance of goods where there would be no competition for resources. This is exactly what Marx taught actually, but his mistake was the assumption that a socialist society can still be built before such abundance happens as a "transient" state between capitalism and communism. However, when there is competition for goods and resources but no capitalist market, the government has to regulate the distribution of goods and resources, and this can only be accomplished in a totalitarian social system. This is why so far every country that tried to develop communism or socialism ended up in some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship. But when the right time comes and the economy will be mature enough, the transition to communism will happen peacefully and naturally. When the whole industry will be based on robot's labor, there will be abundance of goods and services to such an extent that using money will make no economic sense anymore. I think by that time materialism as a worldview will also become outdated and pretty much extinct. But before that happens we would have to cope with capitalism, because socialist dictatorship is still much worse than capitalist democracy (believe me, I was raised in USSR, it was way worse than US/European capitalism even with all its current problems), and to everyone who disagrees I would recommend to go and enjoy living in North Korea to prove it.

The danger is that the people that make the programms for robots would be a new oppressive social class.

But what you say is very interesting. Sometimes people asky themselves if China is a communist country and the gotten answer use to be: “No, it is not because China has a capitalist economy.” The true is that the development of capitalism is not an argument against a socialist-communist proyect. On tne contrary, that development leads to a better conditions for a socialist transition, at least in theory. May be that is what the Chinese Communist Party is doing. I doubt that communism is a viable reality but, who knows?

[AshvinP]

Communism can only be realized in a highly developed economy with abundance of goods where there would be no competition for resources. This is exactly what Marx taught actually, but his mistake was the assumption that a socialist society can still be built before such abundance happens as a "transient" state between capitalism and communism. However, when there is competition for goods and resources but no capitalist market, the government has to regulate the distribution of goods and resources, and this can only be accomplished in a totalitarian social system. This is why so far every country that tried to develop communism or socialism ended up in some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship. But when the right time comes and the economy will be mature enough, the transition to communism will happen peacefully and naturally. When the whole industry will be based on robot's labor, there will be abundance of goods and services to such an extent that using money will make no economic sense anymore. I think by that time materialism as a worldview will also become outdated and pretty much extinct. But before that happens we would have to cope with capitalism, because socialist dictatorship is still much worse than capitalist democracy (believe me, I was raised in USSR, it was way worse than US/European capitalism even with all its current problems), and to everyone who disagrees I would recommend to go and enjoy living in North Korea to prove it.

The danger is that the people that make the programms for robots would be a new oppressive social class.

But what you say is very interesting. Sometimes people asky themselves if China is a communist country and the gotten answer use to be: “No, it is not because China has a capitalist economy.” The true is that the development of capitalism is not an argument against a socialist-communist proyect. On tne contrary, that development leads to a better conditions for a socialist transition, at least in theory. May be that is what the Chinese Communist Party is doing. I doubt that communism is a viable reality but, who knows?

This is mostly speculation, but I think it's relatively accurate. It would be helpful to think of capitalism and communism/socialism as polar opposites, similar to nihilism and totalitarianism. The former unfolds as decadent materialism and consumerism over time, and the latter as brutal centralized policies. Most people today forget Nazi was "national socialist" party. Between all these rationalistic and utopian endeavors of the 20th century, hundreds of millions sufferred and died. The world powers oscillate violently between the two precisely because their assumption that they are in control of their own destinies, making rational calculations for the betterment and so-called 'freedom' and 'equality' of their families, people, races, nations, gods, etc.

There is no warrant for that assumption. Every individual can easily confirm how little rational control they have over their life experience, and collectives are formed from these same individuals. Of course, no such self-assessment is done, certainly not by the leaders and influencers. True freedom comes from bringing the poles into greater harmony and balance from within - walking the strait and narrow path and bearing one's cross. Until then, the poles are felt as threatening and destructive external forces for those viewing from the opposite pole and obliviously oscillating along with them. People favoring "big government" in one domain want no governmemt in another domain, and they have no idea why they prefer one over the other. It just seems an immutable law of reality like day and night.

[AshvinP]

Communism can only be realized in a highly developed economy with abundance of goods where there would be no competition for resources. This is exactly what Marx taught actually, but his mistake was the assumption that a socialist society can still be built before such abundance happens as a "transient" state between capitalism and communism. However, when there is competition for goods and resources but no capitalist market, the government has to regulate the distribution of goods and resources, and this can only be accomplished in a totalitarian social system. This is why so far every country that tried to develop communism or socialism ended up in some sort of a totalitarian dictatorship. But when the right time comes and the economy will be mature enough, the transition to communism will happen peacefully and naturally. When the whole industry will be based on robot's labor, there will be abundance of goods and services to such an extent that using money will make no economic sense anymore. I think by that time materialism as a worldview will also become outdated and pretty much extinct. But before that happens we would have to cope with capitalism, because socialist dictatorship is still much worse than capitalist democracy (believe me, I was raised in USSR, it was way worse than US/European capitalism even with all its current problems), and to everyone who disagrees I would recommend to go and enjoy living in North Korea to prove it.

The danger is that the people that make the programms for robots would be a new oppressive social class.

But what you say is very interesting. Sometimes people asky themselves if China is a communist country and the gotten answer use to be: “No, it is not because China has a capitalist economy.” The true is that the development of capitalism is not an argument against a socialist-communist proyect. On tne contrary, that development leads to a better conditions for a socialist transition, at least in theory. May be that is what the Chinese Communist Party is doing. I doubt that communism is a viable reality but, who knows?

This is mostly speculation, but I think it's relatively accurate. It would be helpful to think of capitalism and communism/socialism as polar opposites, similar to nihilism and totalitarianism. The former unfolds as decadent materialism and consumerism over time, and the latter as brutal centralized policies. Most people today forget Nazi was "national socialist" party. Between all these rationalistic and utopian endeavors of the 20th century, hundreds of millions sufferred and died. The world powers oscillate violently between the two precisely because their assumption that they are in control of their own destinies, making rational calculations for the betterment and so-called 'freedom' and 'equality' of their families, people, races, nations, gods, etc.

There is no warrant for that assumption. Every individual can easily confirm how little rational control they have over their life experience, and collectives are formed from these same individuals. Of course, no such self-assessment is done, certainly not by the leaders and influencers. True freedom comes from bringing the poles into greater harmony and balance from within - walking the strait and narrow path and bearing one's cross. Until then, the poles are felt as threatening and destructive external forces for those viewing from the opposite pole and obliviously oscillating along with them. People favoring "big government" in one domain want no governmemt in another domain, and they have no idea why they prefer one over the other. It just seems an immutable law of reality like day and night.

"This is mostly speculation" refers to my comment that follows, not the comments quoted.

[Federica]

The other way to look for validation is statistics: