, ,

This phenomenon, of thinking of something or someone, and then it happening, or that person say contacting you, is so widely anecdotally experienced and reported through history that ive always suspected there is something more to it than purely coincidence. Afterall, there are few coincidences in nature. In a purely statistical sense, any outcome is possible, but in the real world, if a dice lands on the same side 1000 times in a row, there is probably some underlying physical phenomenon causing the distortion from what is expected. 

Now of course the intellectually-vogue response is to say that since we can’t experimentally verify such things with evidence, they ought to be dismissed without evidence. By the very nature of this supposed ‘psychic’ phenomenon, it is necessarily random, and so could not replicated experimentally. Just because it cannot be experimentally verified, does that mean that it should be dismissed and is necessarily false? I doubt it.

In fact, based on what we know about the ‘mind’, it doesn’t seem necessarily unreasonable to me to suspect that minds can alter physical events, or at least, other brains. 

Why is it controversial to speculate that thoughts can cause physical events to happen? Thoughts already do cause physical events to happen. Thinking of lifting your arm, so far as we know, causes your arm to lift. So it seems that brains give rise to some property(a mind) that is able to in turn cause physical changes in at least that brain. If there’s some property of ‘minds’ that can physically effect brains, and there’s some property of brains that is susceptible to input from minds, why exclude even the possibility that that property can cause physical changes in other brains?