Ok I have decided to edit my initial post to satisfy the disturbed thinkers who have come accross it. I appologise for attempting to share my theory. I would however like to say that to label it meaningless babble is a bit ironic because if you philosophers honestly think that a debate on whether or not a glass is half full or half empty is not meaningless existential babble, you should re-think your IQs. I would also like to add that the human brain is a complex organ which scientists admit they still do not know everything of. They said that Einstein used 13% of his brainpower and that the average person uses 11%. So I was just trying to think what the other percentage could be used for. Sorry 4 trying to be vaguely creative. And sorry for trying to figure out why vaguely psychic people exist. Please remember that people have been shocked and outraged by so many theories in past centuries, like Charles Darwin’s evolution theory. People have evolved from other life forms? OOOOOHhhh shock!!! horror!! he is a mad man!!! Well I now know how dear Charles must have felt.
who wants to fastforward a movie and watch the end before, the middle? not me. lately, cetain things that happen to me in the present, feel like they have already happened, and that iv already learned lessons from them, before they have even happened. this is usually only with monumental things, like talking about my sisters wedding. maybe its not the movie we watch, that makes us, or how we make the movie, but instead; how the movie makes us feel.
we are the ebert and roepers of life.
wow, I didn’t know philosophy included meaningless babble about nonsensical non-existant facilities. This post shouldn’t even be given the courstesey of appearing in the philosophy forum, it is much better suited to mundane babble or better yet generic-stupid-mystic-forum.com
i say we find a bunch of mopeds, paint them all solid colors, keep them on our portch, untill one night around autumn, then wheel them out into thee freezing rain.
ok…
you’re assuming here that the future is set in stone. If I could see the future, then you’re assuming there is a ‘future’, in the sense of a path I cannot change. Now, this is a completely seperate debate, but I’d like to point out that if there is no fate, then the future doesn’t exist. Therefore if we have a fated future, seeing into it would be a pointless exersise. This initial argument does hold up though if we are assuming we have no control over out fates.
I’ve had deja vu, when I’ve been in a situation similar to one I’ve already experienced. You’re going to have to expand on this before it holds water.
This is where things start to fall apart. Let us take a step back a several thousand years ago when we all were sitting in caves. Now, I take what you said to mean that humans have had this ability for a long time, but we have evolved to block it out. Now, this has two flaws: for a start, this would have been a great asset to our hunter anscetors, as knowing where your prey is going to go is a very good thing; second is that why did nature (i’m assuming evolution here) not just do away with this ability in the first place instead of going to the trouble of bypassing a part of our brain?
Finally, one cannot ‘subconciously fear’ something from birth. We can be encoded to do so, but if you’re subconciously afraid of something then you’ve experienced or been taught something to make you so.
Nice try, but this needs a lot more polish.
[/quote]
i would like to point out that i , think fate exists, at least on some level. maybe fate can interviene, only as mutch as we let it, sombebody, pass the mike to fate.
they wouldnt hunt if they saw their cave lady, doing a random came man, an hour before dinner. . . .
.,.,m.,.,.,., .,.,.,.,lllkjkjhjhghgfdddddsdsssssds`
.,.,m.,.,.,., .,.,.,.,lllkjkjhjhghgfdddddsdsssssds`
Somebody please do something.
I think I wouldve been interested in this post. I dont think you should edit or delete your ideas when someone criticizes them. Dont let other people change you, change yourself!
First, I’m afraid that the 10% of our brain theory is a myth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain#Myths
http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/4-20-01askeds.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html
Secondly, it is often not the theory that is being critisizced, but rather its structure. That’s what a very large part of philosophy is: how an argument is built. Personally, I found your theory creative and origional, but that’s irrelevant. In my opinion it’s structure fell short, therefore I owed it to you and the philisophical community in general to voice my opinion.
Constructive criticism is the key here, trying to make a theory better. The point of philosophy is strengthing theories through criticism, or doing away with ones that cannot hold up to a critical eye.
Don’t expect that origional means good, or that a theory will be praised off the bat. Even if a theory is sound, any halfway decent philisophical community will still attack it, not only to make it better, but that is one of the points of philosophy.
And I still disagree with a lot of what “dear Charles” had to say…
You can make the argument:
Just because people have not figured out half of the human mind does not necessarily lead us to conclude that a true physic ability may exist. And just because an idea is repusively shocking during its introduction does not do anything to prove its (the idea’s) validity, if you catch my drift… 
Thread locked because of initial post edit.