February 14, 2017
The Psi Encyclopedia needs an entry on telepathy, and since I couldn’t immediately think of someone to write it, I thought I’d have a go myself. So I’ve been having a look through the literature. One particularly interesting read is Rupert Sheldrake’s Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, and Other Unexplained Powers of Animals. I bought it when it came out in 1999 but it got ‘borrowed’ (I can’t complain, I’m a terrible borrower of other people’s books), and it was good to be reminded of the sheer variety of unexplained connections, and contexts in which they appear.
Perhaps the best known phenomenon, and the easiest to test, is the anticipatory behaviour shown by many dogs and cats to the return of a person they’re bonded with. There was a lot of public discussion about the famous Jaytee case, which I devoted several pages to in Randi’s Prize, but this is no anomalous outlier – it’s a very commonly described experience. Sheldrake collected 580 reports of dogs that know when their owners are coming home, and 359 of cats. This is a typical example:
I first noted Poppet showed restlessness, excitement, ears pricked up, tail wagging, wandering between front and back doors, and she developed a special type of bark which I always called ‘a yipping’ – and surely within minutes my mother arrived. No special times or routine to her visits, but Poppet’s reaction was always the same – morning, noon or night. I gradually got to notice that I could tell whether my mother was coming via the front or back door, as Poppet would position herself at the right one. I also noted that when the telephone rang, although Poppet would look at it, she did not particularly bother, but I always knew when my mother was on the phone, as Poppet appeared all excited standing by the phone and using her special ‘yipping’ call.
The obvious explanations are that the animal responds to a regular routine, or that it receives warning by sense of smell or hearing. But, as in this example, it happens when the returns are at irregular times. The case collection includes more than twenty cases of pets alerting the parents of young servicemen to their imminent (unannounced) arrival on leave, hours or even days in advance. Smell could not be the explanation over distances of more than a mile, and even then, the wind would need to be blowing in the right direction. In fact the anticipatory behaviour often starts when the owners are much further away. Dogs do not have particularly good hearing, and even if they could distinguish the sound of a particular vehicle approaching from a distance, it would not explain their awareness of a particular individual returning by public transport.
Cats’ hearing is exceptional. But the same applies. In one case, a cat that habitually responded to the return of his teenage owner was watched by the boy’s father one night when he was expected to arrive quite late. On three separate occasions a taxi stopped in front of the building, but the cat paid no attention to any of them. The father says, ‘Some time later, he jumped down and went to the door. Five minutes later I heard the taxi arrive in which my son was travelling.’
There are a few similar examples with other pets: parrots, horses, sheep and monkeys. There are also other types of connection, although less frequently reported and not easily testable. Pets who provide reassurance to people who are stressed or ill might simply be responding to changes they pick up, but there are cases of animals said to have prevented suicide by, for instance, alerting other family members with their frantic behaviour. Signs of stress have also been observed in pets coinciding with a death or accident at a distance of a person they are bonded with.
Many pet owners are convinced the animal can sense what they are thinking. For instance some guide-dog owners believe their animal picks up their thoughts about where they want to go. Here there is an obvious explanation: the dog responds to subtle body movements that give away their intention, and it would be hard to disprove this objectively. But the owners are quite aware of this, and discount it:
I am totally blind so I cannot see the dog, and I wouldn’t be sure about direction of travel. Under those conditions I wouldn’t be making any indication as to direction or stopping or starting. I am just walking along thinking, and that is why I started to believe he is picking up something other than visual cues or other physical indications.
I mentioned here some time ago a friend who lives alone with two cats, who was offered an opportunity to sell up and live abroad. An immediate concern was that a home would need to be found for the cats. The move was just an idea in her head, something that might or might not take place some time in the future – she made no actual preparations and did not change her routine. But the cats suddenly became frantic: they followed her around, mewing piteously and wouldn’t let her out of their sight. When a few days later she decided definitively not to leave, the cats resumed their normal behaviour. That’s a one off, but many owners are convinced there’s an ongoing telepathic connection. Cats in particular are notorious for disappearing on the day of a planned trip to the vet – even in the absence of obvious preparations like getting out the cat basket.
Experiments have been carried out that suggest telepathic connections between bonded animals, in situations where there is no channel for sensory communication. In one instance, a pair of horses who lived as close companions were separated and kept out of sight and hearing of each other. One was fed at irregular times which were found to coincide with times when the other became excited and demanded food. The same reaction occurred when one was taken out and exercised. Of 119 experiments, the results were positive in 68%. In control experiments, with horses who were hostile to each other, there was only one positive result out of 15.
A related topic is the connected behaviour of certain fish, birds and insects – flocks, swarms, colonies. There’s still no clear indication of how, for instance, blind termites go about building complex structures with nests up to ten feet high, complete with galleries, chambers and even ventilation shafts. In one experiment, termites repaired breaches made in their mounds from every side, making structures that joined perfectly, even though the insects did not come into contact, and could not see each other, being blind. Even so, it’s hard to suppose they weren’t aware of what the others were doing, by some means. So in a second experiment, the mound was dissected by a steel plate, ensuring that the builders on either side had no sensory awareness of those on the other. Yet when the steel plate was removed, the structures on one side were found to match exactly with those on the other.
What about flocks of birds, the famous starling ‘murmurations’? It’s natural to suppose that each responds to moves by its neighbour, but for waves to be coordinated purely by visual stimuli would mean birds being able to sense, notice and react to waves almost immediately, even those that come from directly behind them, having ‘practically continuous, unblinking, 360 degree visual attention’. But an experiment with flocks of dunlins, a wading shorebird, found that the waves took an average of 15 milliseconds to move from one bird to the next, while in the laboratory the fastest reaction found in a dunlin, in response to a flash of light, was 38 milliseconds.
As we know, Sheldrake looks to morphic fields to explain these and similar phenomena. He sees morphic fields extending ‘beyond the brain into the environment, linking us to the object of our perception and making us capable of affecting them through our intention and attention’. In the case of collective behaviour in large groups, each unit is responding to a kind of gestalt that is available to all, instinctually playing its part to bring a form into being.
Another phenomenon that interests me is the homing ability of animals, which is well documented but remains absolutely mysterious. In the 1930s, an experiment was carried out in Bavaria with a sheepdog named Max, who was taken in a closed van by a roundabout route to a place he’d never been to before, then released, and observed by trained observers stationed along the route he was expected to take home; he was also followed by cyclists.
Max scanned the landscape in various directions, as if taking his bearings. After several trials he began to concentrate on the direction of his home, looking resolutely homewards, and after half an hour he set off. He avoided going through woods, hid from passing cars and circumvented farmhouses and villages. After travelling for just over an hour, he came out on the familiar road into his village, and galloped home. The distance he covered was about six miles.
In a second trial from the same place he took a short cut and arrived home in 43 minutes. He appeared to make no use of sense of smell, since he did not sniff at the trees or ground or try to pick up a trail, which would in any case have been pointless.
Another dog was released in the city of Munich, three miles from her home.
When she was first released, she behaved very much as Max had done; she spent about 25 minutes taking her bearings, looking principally in the direction of her home, and then trotted off in the right direction. All went well until she encountered a frolicsome dog in the Tassiloplatz who led her astray. After some time she took her bearings again, and once more set off in a direct line towards her home. The journey took 93 minutes, including the time spent taking her bearings, playing and straying. The second time, six weeks later, from the same place, she took only five minutes to get her bearings, took the same route and arrived 37 minutes later. Like Max, she was not sniffing and could see no familiar sights.
The same researcher tried similar experiments with another dog, which all failed – again, a reminder that animals, like people, differ in their abilities. The owner of two huskies observed that one had excellent navigational skills, but it was impossible to tell by watching the confident way he trotted home what clues he was following. He didn’t seem to be navigating by landmarks, since he might take different routes. But this dog’s mate often got lost: to get home she simply parked herself on someone’s doorstep and waited for the homeowner to call the telephone number on her collar.
There are lots of theories about homing pigeons, and every so often new research is declared to have cracked the mystery. But nothing definitive. One recent experiment claimed to find they followed geographical features in the landscape like roads and railway lines. This might be a partial explanation, for birds who make the same regular journey. But in another experiment, cited by Sheldrake, birds fitted with frosted contact lenses still reached their destination, so they couldn’t have been relying on sight (although they tended to crash land when they arrived.). Recently, there have been confident declarations that the sense of smell is key, based on pigeons’ loss of homing ability after having the olfactory nerve severed. But other experiments cited by Sheldrake appeared to eliminate the sense of smell, and in any case, it would not necessarily explain the ability of pigeons to home from unfamiliar places.
The phenomenon of mass bird migrations might be explained by Sheldrake's idea of a collective memory in morphic fields:
Thus when a young cuckoo sets off from England to Africa it draws upon a collective memory of its ancestors. This memory, inherent in the morphic field of its migratory path, guides it as it goes, giving it a memory of directions in which to fly, and an instinctive recognition of landmarks, feeding grounds and resting places. This collective memory also enables it to recognise when it has arrived at its destination, the ancestral winter home.
Sheldrake concedes that with homing pigeons, navigation can be aided by using the sun’s position, and perhaps even a magnetic sense, to help keep their bearings and stay on course. But he adds, ‘Without the directional pull through the morphic field connecting them to their home, they would be lost’
It struck me, while reading about all of this, how extraordinary it is to have all these curious phenomena on our doorstep, so to speak, and yet to pay them so little attention. Going back to anticipatory behaviour, the implication of Sheldrake’s research is that as many as half of dogs display it, an astonishing number, if one considers we’re talking about something that science says is flat out impossible. The fact that the other half don’t doesn’t invalidate its existence. Some dogs might simply lack that kind of sensitivity, like most humans. (I watched out for it in my own dog – now sadly deceased – but didn’t see any suggestion of it, or any other psi connections). And there could be other reasons: in cases where the owner lives alone, and there is no one to observe the pet’s behaviour, or where the bond is not particularly strong, for instance.
Even if Sheldrake’s figures are an overestimate, taking into account the number of pet owning households (nearly half in the UK, two thirds in the US) the research indicates that tens, possibly hundreds of millions in the developed world have experience of telepathy through this phenomenon. And this is not a single event – it’s observed regularly, in some cases almost daily. This is perhaps one reason why so many people in surveys say they believe in telepathy – typically a third to half. It’s not because they’re naturally superstitious, or credulous, or ignorant of science (although, sure, some of them may be). It’s just that – quite reasonably – they trust the evidence of their own repeated experience in preference to remote abstractions about what is and is not possible in nature.
A related but equally curious mystery is the paucity of research in this area. Sheldrake mentions quite a few experiments, but most seemed to be one-offs, carried out by people who had a lot to do with animals, and wanted to test their observations, but typically weren’t followed up. If one day it’s considered to be in our interests to find out what’s going on, animals will be a rich field for scientific investigation.
Question, does the theory about microscopic magnetic crystals in the pigeon's brain have any merit?
I wonder if my rats know when I'm coming home. I live alone except for them so I can't ask anyone else if they do. I don't think they do because when I come into the room they're almost invariably asleep. Guess it doesn't work with all pets.
Posted by: chel | February 14, 2017 at 07:15 PM
Just this evening, on the ITV programme 'The Secret life of Dogs', it was claimed that dogs have an olfactory scent monitor that explains how they know when their owner is coming home. Apparently, the human scent fades as the hours go by until it dips to a certain level that represents home time. Hence the dog is able to tell the time, as it were, and anticipate the owner's imminent return.
The fact that this does nothing at all to explain the evidence showing that dogs can determine their owner's arrival home at sporadic intervals appears to be of no concern whatsoever to these documentary makers. :)
Where do they find these people?
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 14, 2017 at 10:28 PM
Julie; it seems quite likely to me that the scent monitor is a thing but that it doesn't explain all cases. I didn't know that but it seems perfectly logical, so thanks for helping me learn something!
Posted by: chel | February 14, 2017 at 10:49 PM
An odd coincidence! I watched the first episode last week, and recorded yesterday's to watch later - will try to catch up with it tonight.
I hadn't heard of this before, but it was just a matter of time before someone came up with it. Surely a case of ideology shaping the evidence, a rather common phenomenon in this field, but probably in others also. Will be interesting to monitor, to see how it gains traction as the 'official' explanation.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM
Quite, all. It doesn't explain Sheldrake's data, which shows that (at least in one case - JT, although there may have been others) the dog reacted when the owner, who was with an observer, DECIDED to head for home.
Posted by: Steve Hume | February 15, 2017 at 08:57 PM
I think Parapsychology should consider doing more animal psi research - it might generate higher effect sizes.
The main I think the field lacks is a big media personality that can really sell it and make it exciting. We can keep improving the evidence and we should do that - but we need to be able to capture people's attention.
Posted by: Roberta | February 16, 2017 at 10:23 AM
Trouble is, when they reveal such shabby research in one area there's a tendency to doubt any other claims they make on the programme.
Also, they were making the usual comparisons between the wolf and the domesticated dog. I seem to recall some recent controversy suggesting that the link between the two isn't as clear cut as has hitherto been believed . . . . . . . or something.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 16, 2017 at 10:25 AM
I'm a fan of Starling murmations, and there are a squillion videos of them on YouTube. Allow me to post my favorite one (again):
Whenever I'm a little down, or need a spiritual lift, I watch it. At the time of this posting it had nearly ten million views, so it obviously has some staying power. I imagine the accompanying originally scored music helps. It's perfect.
Posted by: Rabbitdawg | February 17, 2017 at 01:25 AM
Maybe it's just my computer, but I noticed the link I provided above only works if it's opened in a new tab or fresh window. A direct click just brings you back to a blank Paranormalia blog page. Odd...
Posted by: Rabbitdawg | February 17, 2017 at 01:30 AM
'Just this evening, on the ITV programme 'The Secret life of Dogs', it was claimed that dogs have an olfactory scent monitor that explains how they know when their owner is coming home. Apparently, the human scent fades as the hours go by until it dips to a certain level that represents home time. Hence the dog is able to tell the time, as it were, and anticipate the owner's imminent return.
The fact that this does nothing at all to explain the evidence showing that dogs can determine their owner's arrival home at sporadic intervals appears to be of no concern whatsoever to these documentary makers.'
I saw this episode now. It was clear this is about an internal clock that would only show an effect for returns within a regular routine. There was no suggestion that it would work for irregular returns from a distance, and actually no indication of any awareness of these claims. Also, no indication of any new research - I think the idea must be based on conjecture.
But not obviously wrong, as far as it goes. The smell function in dogs is pretty impressive. Apparently they breathe out through a flap at the back, so as not interrupt the stream coming in the front. And who knew they smell in stereo, different streams through each nostril simultaneously? Cool!
This episode also had quite a bit about dogs intuiting when their owners are ill, eg. waking up a woman when her blood sugar is dangerously low to stop her going into a coma. That was attributed to smell, the dog sensing a change of chemistry in her breath. Fair enough. Dogs are said to be able to smell cancer cells too. But in this instance, it doesn't explain why the dog would attach so much importance to a change in breath odour, or recognise it as a threat.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 17, 2017 at 02:21 PM
'Maybe it's just my computer, but I noticed the link I provided above only works if it's opened in a new tab or fresh window.'
Works OK for me, Dawg. Cool stuff!
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 17, 2017 at 02:23 PM
Yes, the programme was interesting and, as you say, I'm sure the olfactory explanation offered for regular owner return times is very plausible. It's just that the phenomenon is far more complex than that and what they offered by way of explanation was something of a cop out.
BTW, I'm having the same problem that Rabbitdawg is having. I mentioned it once before with respect to earlier links posted here - but thought it was just me. :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 17, 2017 at 04:11 PM
"I'm having the same problem that Rabbitdawg is having."
Yes; same here. This isn't the first time this as happened.
Posted by: Stuart Certain | February 17, 2017 at 09:22 PM
Animals would probably be able to determine "this is a smell to stay away from" in the case of illness; cancer isn't catching but it might cause a similar smell to diseases that are.
Posted by: chel | February 17, 2017 at 10:22 PM
Ah Steve Hume (or Open Mind as you used to post as), do you still claim the fraudulent medium Helen Duncan was genuine? You were claiming all over the web she was 'framed' by the Government despite the fact she was caught-red handed in fraud. Or have you come over to the skeptic side now? :)
Posted by: Waller Joel | February 18, 2017 at 05:56 AM
Rupert Sheldrake's studies were debunked by David Marks.
No scientist ever replicated any of Sheldrake's 'experiments'... funny that :P
Posted by: Waller Joel | February 18, 2017 at 05:58 AM
"Rupert Sheldrake's studies were debunked by David Marks."
And he was replicated by Sheldrake here:
"No scientist ever replicated any of Sheldrake's 'experiments'."
That does not imply that psi don't exist, because either the scientists do not put enough interest to replicate them, or psi has too many variables to be replicable strictly, but the funny or sad thing is that you keep commenting without making constructive comments...
Posted by: Juan | February 18, 2017 at 08:35 AM
Waller Joel - Whoever you are, haven't you got anything better to do then go after posters here personally and say the word 'debunked' like it means anything in a Scientific context?
Robert - Are you able to do anything about this guy (or these guys, I dunno how many of them there are)? They are doing this on pretty much every post of yours now.
Posted by: Roberta | February 18, 2017 at 11:37 AM
'Robert - Are you able to do anything about this guy (or these guys, I dunno how many of them there are)? They are doing this on pretty much every post of yours now.'
Good question. I'm OK with sceptics posting if they at least try to be constructive, but that isn't often the case. I also think they put other people off posting comments, who don't want to get snarked at.
In reply to your earlier question, I haven't got any clues from the IP addresses. But I'm aware that commenters here have used a VPN to create new ones in the past, and that may be the case now. I've just been corresponding with one individual who has been impersonated here, and who has some interesting ideas about who is behind that.
I've said it before, but one way to deal with these radicalwiki types is just not to pay them any attention. We really don't have to explain or justify ourselves, and it just encourages them.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 18, 2017 at 03:07 PM
Pay no attention to Waller Joel, Roberta. He's a sad soul, better known as Tiny Todger from the days when he had to share the communal showers after school sports. Children can be so very cruel.
Unfortunately, it's left him stuck in third-form mentality with a terrible chip on his shoulder. :(
Never mind, little Waller, your secret's safe with me. ;)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 18, 2017 at 03:08 PM
NB I stand debunked:
It seems it was only in elementary school that Waller Joel was known as Tiny Todger. Later, during high school, he became better known as Little Willie Waller. A minor detail, but one likes to be thorough in these matters. :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 18, 2017 at 04:39 PM
"Waller Joel - Whoever you are, haven't you got anything better to do then go after posters here personally and say the word 'debunked' like it means anything in a Scientific context?"
No he has been doing this for years. He was the same person behind the "MU" trolling on the Skeptiko Forum. If you run an internet search on "Waller Joel" and "Spiritualism" you can see the sort of games he has been up to. He pretended to be a physical medium in the past.
Posted by: Tom | February 18, 2017 at 08:27 PM
Here is some info on Waller Joel (MU):
Posted by: Tom | February 18, 2017 at 08:31 PM
Guys what do you think about Caroline Watt? Do you think you represents modern parapsychology well? She just published a book in 2016 which was an Introduction to Parapsychology, it says:
"Overall, the majority of academic parapsychologists do not find the evidence compelling in favour of macro-PK. However, as a result of this work, we now have a much greater understanding of the psychological strategies employed by fake psychics to fool people, including how they manipulate attention, perception, and memory."
What do you guys think about this statement?
Posted by: Dermont Mulroney | February 18, 2017 at 09:54 PM
Here is David Marks paper
Sheldrake's reply to Marks
Posted by: Dermont Mulroney | February 18, 2017 at 09:55 PM
Robert you might be interested in this book, it is a book that argues for telepathy in animals, this was long before Sheldrake's work and is out of copyright. I don't think it was reviewed by the SPR.
C. Bingham Newland. What is instinct? Some thoughts on telepathy and subconsciousness in animals, 1916.
And it is online for free:
Posted by: Dermont Mulroney | February 18, 2017 at 10:05 PM
A couple of days ago, I came across a book that I read years ago called 'Horse Wisdom' by a remarkable, natural horseman called Henry Blake. In it, Blake describes a whole series of practical experiments in which he demonstrates the telepathic abilities of horses. I don't know if the book is still in print (it's a compilation of three shorter books by the same author. But you are welcome to borrow it, Robert if you think it might be of any interest to you.
As a lifelong horsewoman myself, there is no doubt in my mind that horses have remarkable ability understand the thoughts and intentions of others - and not just through the observation of subtle body movements. As with humans, there are individual differences in this, and related, abilities.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 19, 2017 at 09:50 AM
Dermont, thanks for pointing out the book, not one I'd come across before.
With regard to Caroline Watt, she sort of straddles the line between sceptic and proponent. She's been involved with the Koestler Parapsychology Unit at Edinburgh University since it's founding, and now heads it. Her partner is Richard Wiseman and in public she tends to follow his line about deception/self-deception/ hallucination, etc.
But she also speaks at SPR conferences where she appears genuinely interested in carrying out research, and acts more like a proponent than a debunker. Some years ago she contributed an article about parapsychology to the Guardian in positive terms (ie that it's a worthwhile endeavor), which outraged sceptic commenters. On the other hand, she co-authored a journal paper claiming that NDEs are entirely explicable in terms of neuroscience, which is surely a stretch, and which her psi-research colleagues easily refuted.
One might ask why a person persists in looking for something that she seems so unwilling to concede actually might exist. I don't think that's it - I think people necessarily reach their own kind of accommodation, that enables them to work in this very difficult and contentious area. It's a distortion caused by ideology. Personally, it would stress me trying to live in two different worlds simultaneously, but perhaps she doesn't see it like that.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 19, 2017 at 06:33 PM
'A couple of days ago, I came across a book that I read years ago called 'Horse Wisdom' by a remarkable, natural horseman called Henry Blake. In it, Blake describes a whole series of practical experiments in which he demonstrates the telepathic abilities of horses.'
Julie, thanks for the offer. There is a bit about Blake in Sheldrake's book, eg. the experiment in which he successfully directed a horse by telepathy to eat from one or other of two food bowls on successive days. This is indeed an interesting area. There must be so many experiments that people who spend a lot of time with animals could carry out on their own.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 19, 2017 at 06:36 PM
Oddly I walked straight into..or under..a murmuration of starlings just a couple of weeks ago. Leaving Florence railway station at twilight there was the thunderous clatter or pouring rain outside. Anticipating being drenched as we walked from the main entrance to the tree lined traffic island a few meters in front of it, I was confused by the fact the downpour could still be heard, but I couldn't feel a single drop.
Only when I looked up at the overhead trees did it dawn on me that they were alive with birds, and these were the source of the noise, not a torrent of rain. And in the sky far above the famous swooping and swooshing flocks of thousands of starlings doing their display.
I only discovered the word murmuration when i googled it 10 minutes later.. and I've been seeing it everywhere since!
Posted by: Lawrence B | February 19, 2017 at 10:55 PM
"they trust the evidence of their own repeated experience in preference to remote abstractions about what is and is not possible in nature. "
I love that. Great post, Robert!
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | February 20, 2017 at 04:56 AM
People might be mildly amused by this; on the Tumblr "atheistcartoons", most of the entries seem to not actually be cartoons. I don't know if that's ironic.
Posted by: chel | February 22, 2017 at 11:10 PM
It was obvious from the latest episode of 'Secret Life of Dogs' that dogs have *far* higher emotional intelligence (EQ) than do we humans. But then I never suspected otherwise.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 24, 2017 at 11:00 PM
Presently reading Michael Tymn's, 'Dead Men Talking' and just came across the following passage:
"Animals: Dogs come and go freely, back and forth across the invisible line. I am told this as a fact. They do not need to leave their natural bodies to associate with those who have died. They often follow their masters. Other animals have not quite these privileges, but after dissolution they appear here. I may not be clear. I often find a certain embarrassment in saying things that I, myself, would once have called bunk. But I guess they are true, all right."
Tymn, Michael. Dead Men Talking: Afterlife Communication from World War I (p. 54). White Crow Productions Ltd.. Kindle Edition. "
Anyway, it's a fascinating read and I'm grateful that Michael has put in the time and work to record all this information from the past.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | February 26, 2017 at 03:28 PM
Gee Robert, I had the most amazing parallel life experience the other day. I swear, it seemed as real as the life I am living right now. In this Parallel Life Experience, I was reading a complete Paranormalia post about reincarnation accounts and celebrity claims. In the article, you also discussed writing an long overdue entry about the same subject in the Psi Encyclopedia.
It was all so...I dunno...I just can't get over how real it all seemed at the time!
Posted by: Rabbitdawg | February 26, 2017 at 04:31 PM
Hey Dawg - As you see, I took the hint and have posted on reincarnation. :)
Or did you really tune into what I was planning?
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | February 28, 2017 at 10:14 AM
I'm afraid I haven't a blind clue as to what you're talking about. But, as you don't appear to know either, then I think it's probably OK just to leave it there.
Posted by: Steve Hume | February 28, 2017 at 11:51 PM
"Gee Robert, I had the most amazing parallel life experience the other day. I swear, it seemed as real as the life I am living right now. In this Parallel Life Experience, I was reading a complete Paranormalia post about reincarnation accounts and celebrity claims. In the article, you also discussed writing an long overdue entry about the same subject in the Psi Encyclopedia.
It was all so...I dunno...I just can't get over how real it all seemed at the time!"
:-) - Posted by: Rabbitdawg
"Hey Dawg - As you see, I took the hint and have posted on reincarnation. :)
Or did you really tune into what I was planning?" - Posted by: Robert McLuhan
I dunno Robert, a little bit of both perhaps. You tell me.
I saw the February 24th Paranormalia tweet linking to a Psi Encyclopedia article concerning memories of famous past lives.
But I also clearly remember reading an actual Paranormalia blog post about the same topic. In this post, you were mildly apologetic and seemed a bit peeved that an entry on the subject had been neglected for so long, and you were considering writing the article yourself. I read part way through the text, but decided to get back to it at a later time when I could give it more attention.
On Sunday evening, the 26th, I went back to read the rest of your Paranormalia post about famous past lives, but it was 'gone'. I my comment (above), I was gently teasing you, thinking you had deleted the post entirely and were reworking it.
If indeed, no famous past lives Paranormalia entry existed prior to February 27th, (when you did post an entry on the general subject), then I guess I'm conflating a vivid dream with real world events.
On one hand, perhaps it was a precognitive dream. On the other hand, the whole thing can be swept under the carpet by deciding it would make sense for you to blog about a recent entry to the Psi Encyclopedia that caught your attention, and I just happened to have a dream that seemed so real, I retained it as a memory of an actual event.
Other than the obvious sanity paranoia, it doesn't bother me though. I rarely remember my dreams, yet there's definitely at least a touch of synchronization going on here, materialistically rational or otherwise.
Posted by: Rabbitdawg | March 01, 2017 at 09:56 AM
That seems like a fair assessment :)
I can't recall ever having much interest in the famous past lives thing - it was suggested by Karen, who authored the encyclopedia article. Worth covering, I think.
Posted by: Robert McLuhan | March 01, 2017 at 10:10 AM
"I've just been corresponding with one individual who has been impersonated here, and who has some interesting ideas about who is behind that. "
Yeah, I've noticed that somebody has been using Max_B... just happened to stumble across a comment from January on here in a google search that I don't recall making...
Wasn't Guy Lyon Playfair the guy who embarrassed himself by claiming the Enfield poltergeist was real? Yet others investigated and found it was nothing more than the kid pulling silly pranks.
Posted by: Max_B | January 29, 2017 at 11:49 PM
Posted by: Max_B | March 14, 2017 at 08:47 AM