Science, Precognition, and Dreams

Over the past several decades, experiments have been conducted in several countries with results that suggest the demonstration of precognition. The gist of these experiments is as follows. Individuals as test subjects are shown pictures that provoke a strong emotional response and neutral pictures that don’t provoke a response. As might be expected, there is a definite difference in physiological activity when these pictures are viewed. 

The two classes of pictures can be characterized by two decidedly different profiles: one shows activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the other shows inactivity. See http://www.dailygrail.com/2014/3/Scientific-Research-Suggests-We-Unconsciously-React-Events-10-Seconds-They-Happen. 

Now things get interesting. When the picture the subject is going to be shown is something provocative, up to ten seconds before seeing the picture, the subject displays physiological activity corresponding to that occurrence. If he or she is going to be shown a neutral image, there is inactivity. 

Some suggested that the conductor of the experiment was doing something that tipped off the subject about the nature of the picture he or she would be shown. So experimenters removed the potential bias of the conductor by having a computer make a random selection and repeated the experiments. Neither the conductor nor subject knows what type of picture would be selected. 

The same results are obtained. The subject seems to know what type of picture would be selected, before it is selected at random, up to ten seconds before the selection. 

These results are very puzzling to many scientists. Some say they conclusively demonstrate precognition and others state that there must be some other explanation. Many have called for more experiments that are carefully conducted to rule out any possibility of experimental bias. 

In the nineteenth century, several different scientific committees were commissioned to investigate psychic phenomena like precognition and telepathy. The groups could never come to a unanimous conclusion. Those who believed in the possibility of psychic phenomena concluded that the data supported its existence. Those who believed that psychic phenomena was impossible and promoted by charlatans concluded the data did not support its existence. These studies, which were conducted in France and elsewhere, are described in The Law of Psychic Phenomena by Thomson Jay Hudson. 

The reason for the conflicting results might simply be the one given by Hudson. For most scientific experiments designed to establish a result, the conductor is not relevant to the experiment. By that, I mean that anyone who follows certain steps and procedures should obtain similar results. 

Herein lies the problem. When trying to prove that precognition or telepathy exists, the persons designing and conducting the experiment are part of the experiment. There is the possibility that their beliefs strongly affect the results. So we find that believers get the results they expect and non-believers get the results they expect. 

In one of the articles I read from the Internet, the suggestion was made that precognition could be established if someone could do something like predicting the next day’s closing stock price. I have done this a few times through my dreams, but I cannot control it. 

I don’t know why my subconscious decides on those few occasions to provide this information. I don’t know what aspects of my next day my dreams will focus on, so conducting any kind of experiment is not possible. I am convinced by the preponderance of daily evidence that I have collected over many years. 

In the early days of Edgar Cayce’s readings, the results were not always as beneficial as Cayce and his close supporters would have liked. They soon realized that the readings were affected by the conductor and those in attendance. Cayce decided that his wife would become the conductor for all of the readings, and more attention was paid to the intentions of those in attendance. These actions led to improved results. 

If you acknowledge telepathy, then it is clear that a stream of messages can be sent to someone who is being tested or in a trance state that are never seen or heard consciously. Experiments with hypnosis demonstrate that a negative audience can affect the results and may cause the person under hypnosis to fall out of that state. In conducting experiments or demonstrations involving psychic phenomena, dreams, and hypnosis, the subject, testers, and audience are all part of the experiment. 

If you doubt that you can have precognitive dreams, you probably will not have them. If you are at least open-minded to the possibility, as I was when I first began examining my dreams, I believe you will see the evidence. In the beginning, I had not yet formed an opinion about precognitive dreams, but in time the evidence was overwhelming that they do occur. 

I wanted to understand my dreams, believed it was possible, and expected results, which came quickly. I believe this approach separated me from many others who never found much help from their dreams or evidence of precognition. 

Scientists around the world continue to conduct experiments to either establish precognition and telepathy or prove it doesn’t exist. One problem is that few seem to realize they are part of the experiment. Their beliefs will affect the results and often negate the value of the experiment. 

Many dream labs have conducted studies to evaluate thought transference and precognition as well. And they face a similar problem. In addition, it is not easy to control the content of a person’s dream. In the final analysis, you have to examine your own dreams and decide for yourself what is possible.