So, it has come to my attention that my recent thread Possible Psi Cases may have been hastily read by some and that there may not have been sufficient information. That is fair, I probably should've included them and so I shall. Let us go into detail for each of them starting with the first.
Case 1: Innate Drug Aversion
Before I had those drug prevention programs I used to be tutored by some of my parent's employees. None of them used drugs or if they did I definitely did not know about it however one of them smoked. I saw how they often times had to take a smoke break and putting 2 and 2 together figured they must've had a mental compulsion of some sort. From them I learned the word 'addiction' and from my observation, inferred it must be something bad.
Years later I would start the drug prevention program however unlike my peers I already had an aversion to drugs, not because I was taught to do so, well at least not directly and nor was it because I was in the company of drug users. You could say I don't like having my mind altered. I desire to be genuine. Is this possible? Yes. Does it require a psi hypothesis? No.
My guess is that just as some of us are risk averse, genetically some may be predisposed to being against certain things even if we don't initially understand why. People can be genetically predisposed to personality traits (such as risk aversion, harm avoidance, or disgust sensitivity) that indirectly make them more likely to avoid drugs. Of course I haven't run a gene test to see if that may be the reason but let's consider another factor;
Even though I've never been around a drug user while growing up, I was around a smoker. Now from this you may expect that I would be against smoking, which I am however interestingly this early exposure may have bled over into my aversion towards drugs due to being closely related. Still we must not completely dismiss the possibility of psi. So what are the psi hypothesis?
1. Innate moral or spiritual intuition
2. Protective Influence
3. Past Life Trauma involving drugs
4. Subconscious awareness of spiritual harm from substance use.
5. Divine instinct placed as part of a greater plan or mission.
Examining these I would say 1 is possible. I mean, I am averse to being forced into something I am not, to force others to go against their person though whether that's just my preference, morals or spiritual intuition is another matter. For the second one, if there is some sort of protective influence it's hard to say where it's coming from. Is it divine, a spiritual trait, some combination? As for the 3rd hypothesis I have never recalled a past life however just because I can't recall it doesn't mean it's never happened. Indeed it would be fair to say that given the type of society I grew up in, perhaps I suppress those memories? Except no. I do not and have never recall a single past life however I will admit perhaps there's another explanation for that other than suppression. Perhaps if we assume past lives or reincarnation, the awareness of having thus experience may not be guaranteed to transfer over. Think of it like new game+ but without the befit of knowledge. As for the 4th and 5th hypothesis... I guess? Still if there is some sort of divine instinct I for one cannot tell what greater plan or purpose being innately averse to drugs may be.
By the way, I probably should clarify that my aversion may not protect me from being drugged without my awareness as I have never tested to see if I can tell if I'm being secretly drugged or not and nor do I want to find out.
Now in my opinion, while I am curious as to why I innately loathe drugs I find that the non-supernatural explanations suffice. That's not to say there can't be anomalous ones but if they are there then it's hard to see if they are primarily the reason why or only a secondary factor. So would I say the first case shows psi?
Eh, even if we assume it's a factor I'd say the nonsupernatural clause suffices either through possible genetics, risk aversion and inference or some combination thereof.
Now, in the event that a certain Keldan is reading this I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with the conclusion that this case is probably sufficiently explained by non psi means. Where I am disagreeing is the reasoning behind it but in all fairness I hadn't shared the specifics so it's understandable why certain assumptions may have been made.
Case 1: Innate Drug Aversion
Before I had those drug prevention programs I used to be tutored by some of my parent's employees. None of them used drugs or if they did I definitely did not know about it however one of them smoked. I saw how they often times had to take a smoke break and putting 2 and 2 together figured they must've had a mental compulsion of some sort. From them I learned the word 'addiction' and from my observation, inferred it must be something bad.
Years later I would start the drug prevention program however unlike my peers I already had an aversion to drugs, not because I was taught to do so, well at least not directly and nor was it because I was in the company of drug users. You could say I don't like having my mind altered. I desire to be genuine. Is this possible? Yes. Does it require a psi hypothesis? No.
My guess is that just as some of us are risk averse, genetically some may be predisposed to being against certain things even if we don't initially understand why. People can be genetically predisposed to personality traits (such as risk aversion, harm avoidance, or disgust sensitivity) that indirectly make them more likely to avoid drugs. Of course I haven't run a gene test to see if that may be the reason but let's consider another factor;
Even though I've never been around a drug user while growing up, I was around a smoker. Now from this you may expect that I would be against smoking, which I am however interestingly this early exposure may have bled over into my aversion towards drugs due to being closely related. Still we must not completely dismiss the possibility of psi. So what are the psi hypothesis?
1. Innate moral or spiritual intuition
2. Protective Influence
3. Past Life Trauma involving drugs
4. Subconscious awareness of spiritual harm from substance use.
5. Divine instinct placed as part of a greater plan or mission.
Examining these I would say 1 is possible. I mean, I am averse to being forced into something I am not, to force others to go against their person though whether that's just my preference, morals or spiritual intuition is another matter. For the second one, if there is some sort of protective influence it's hard to say where it's coming from. Is it divine, a spiritual trait, some combination? As for the 3rd hypothesis I have never recalled a past life however just because I can't recall it doesn't mean it's never happened. Indeed it would be fair to say that given the type of society I grew up in, perhaps I suppress those memories? Except no. I do not and have never recall a single past life however I will admit perhaps there's another explanation for that other than suppression. Perhaps if we assume past lives or reincarnation, the awareness of having thus experience may not be guaranteed to transfer over. Think of it like new game+ but without the befit of knowledge. As for the 4th and 5th hypothesis... I guess? Still if there is some sort of divine instinct I for one cannot tell what greater plan or purpose being innately averse to drugs may be.
By the way, I probably should clarify that my aversion may not protect me from being drugged without my awareness as I have never tested to see if I can tell if I'm being secretly drugged or not and nor do I want to find out.
Now in my opinion, while I am curious as to why I innately loathe drugs I find that the non-supernatural explanations suffice. That's not to say there can't be anomalous ones but if they are there then it's hard to see if they are primarily the reason why or only a secondary factor. So would I say the first case shows psi?
Eh, even if we assume it's a factor I'd say the nonsupernatural clause suffices either through possible genetics, risk aversion and inference or some combination thereof.
Now, in the event that a certain Keldan is reading this I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with the conclusion that this case is probably sufficiently explained by non psi means. Where I am disagreeing is the reasoning behind it but in all fairness I hadn't shared the specifics so it's understandable why certain assumptions may have been made.
