From a young age, others dream for us. Usually it’s well-meaning parents calling out future potential. Then teachers, coaches, pastors, and others in authority, cast their hopes for us. It becomes harder and harder to tell the difference between others dreams for us and our own dreams. Their dreams become ours.
The problem with others dreams is that to see our dreams come to reality they must come from within. It must be authentically you and no one else. If we do actually achieve others dreams, it is empty and stale because it is not our true dream but a counterfeit. Others have predicted and decided our future and we have wasted years of our life.
When you are chasing someone else’s dreams disguised as our own, you don’t have time to dig, search and find your unique dream. It becomes a distraction from the life you truly desire. Most of the time we have a small feeling it’s not a true dream but we keep on pressing in the same direction. We have been led astray and don’t fully know the extent.
If you think you may have been chasing the wrong dream or need more clarity follow these 3 steps to dig out your dream:
1. Be alone with yourself
We must be alone with ourselves to turn off all of the voices except the one that is internal. In this busy society we must be intentional to make this happen. Technology is unrelenting and a constant distraction.The noise makes it impossible to see the breadcrumbs of your passion, talents, and abilities. The other reason alone time is important is because we often bring others in too early in the process of evaluating our dreams. Alone time must be a constant to help refocus and reevaluate.
“We all have two choices; We can make a living or we can design a life.” – Jim Rohn
2. Write it down
Writing down and putting on paper our dreams, is a necessity. When a dream is written it reminds us of what is non-negotiable. There will be aspects of your dream that you will need to let go or change but there must be things that you won’t budge on no matter what. Writing helps us to distill the difference. Writing also serves as a place to go for hope. We will get discouraged along the journey and we will need to put fuel in our tank. Fuel comes to us be reconnecting with our vision. Put your dream in writing so that you will have an anchor to come back to.
Feedback is a crucial step but a few words of caution. First, we shouldn’t get feedback too early in the process. Make sure that you are firm in where you stand. Second, be cautious of who gives you feedback and who you listen to. Many times we are excited about our dreams and share them with the wrong people. Find others that have been where you want to go and get their feedback. Find out what it takes to get there. They will prepare you for roadblocks, hurdles, and challenges along your journey. They will help you tweak your dream but remember certain parts of your dream must be concrete.
“This one step – choosing a goal and sticking to it – changes everything.” – Scott Reed
As you realign and recalibrate your preferred future, you will find a new found energy and passion. The road is long but it is worth it. Stay true to you and that inner cry. Skill can be learned, but the inner fire is what you want to cultivate. Be blessed on your journey.
Are you chasing your dreams or someone else’s? Please leave your comments below!
Arjun Walia, Collective-Evolution, Guest
Over the past few decades a significant and noteworthy amount of scientific research has emerged contributing to the notion that human precognition could very well be real, and that we all might possess this potential -amongst various other extended human capacities. Thanks to the research by various scientists presented in this article, extended human capacities are beginning to exit the realm of superstitious thinking, delusion and irrationality and find their way into the world of confirmed phenomena. Claims of precognition or “future telling” have occurred “throughout human history in virtually every culture and period.” (source)
It’s not hard to see why we are so fascinated with these concepts, they are embedded in popular culture today throughout various outlets such as movies -which can sometimes be counter productive given the fact that they are merged with fictional stories and events. Similar to the extraterrestrial phenomenon, the validity of these concepts seems to shrink due to the fact that they are “just movies.” Although the stories that accompany these types of phenomena in movies is probably largely factious, the concepts do hold some validity. Let’s examine the truth behind pre cognition and claims of “future telling.”
“There seems to be a deep concern that the whole field will be tarnished by studying a phenomenon that is tainted by its association with superstition, spiritualism and magic. Protecting against this possibility sometimes seems more important than encouraging scientific exploration or protecting academic freedom. But this may be changing.” ~ Cassandra Vieten, PhD and President/CEO at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (source)
So what exactly is precognition? It’s basically the ability to have a premonition of a future event that could not otherwise be anticipated through any known process. It’s the influence of a future event that has yet to take place on an individuals responses. These responses can come in the form of their biology, they can be conscious responses the individual is aware of, or they can be non-conscious responses that the individual is not aware of (which is mostly the case when it comes to the scientific examination of pre cognition) and more.
“Pre cognition refers to the noninferential prediction of future events.” (source)
A recently published study (meta analysis) in the journal Frontiers in Human Neuroscience titled “Predicting the unpredictable: critical analysis and practical implications of predictive anticipatory activity” examined a number of experiments regarding this phenomenon that were conducted by several different laboratories.
These experiments indicate that the human body can actually detect randomly delivered stimuli that occur 1-10 seconds in advance. In other words, the human body seems to know of an event, and reacts to an event that has yet to occur. What occurs in the human body before these events are physiological changes that are measured regarding the cardiopulmonary, the skin, and the nervous system. (1)
It’s important to note that these types of responses to future events that are measured in the body are unconscious responses, meaning that the subject (human) is not aware that they are actually taking place. So it is a form of pre cognition, but not full blown conscious premonitions.
The fact that changes in our physiological activity in the autonomic nervous system changes and prepares for future events is remarkable, and the fact that this is “unconscious precognition” should not take away from the fact that it helps us better understand the phenomenon of conscious precognition in a scientific sense. We are still waiting for science to catch up and provide an explanation for conscious precognition, regardless of whether the phenomenon has been observed or not.
More than 40 experiments investigating this phenomenon in humans have been published over the past 36 years (including: Hartwell, 1978; Radin et al., 1995, 2011; Bierman and Radin, 1997; Radin, 1997, 2004;Don et al., 1998;Bierman, 2000; Bierman and Scholte, 2002; McDonough et al., 2002;Spottiswoode and May, 2003; McCraty et al., 2004a,b; Sartori et al., 2004; May et al., 2005;Tressoldi et al., 2005, 2009, 2011; Radin and Borges, 2009; Bradley et al., 2011). This is what promoted the meta-analysis.
The analysis concluded that:
“The predictive physiological anticipation of a truly randomly selected and thus unpredictable future event, has been under investigation for more than three decades, and a recent conservative meta-analysis suggests that the phenomenon is real.” (1)
Another recently published paper via the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Cornell university professor Dr. Daryl J. Bern suggests that precognition may be real. Dr Bern is a leading social psychologist and has been well-respected throughout his long and esteemed career. So his work suggesting that precognition may be real is quite a large leap for this type of phenomenon.(2)
Dr. Bern’s study outlines nine experiments that involved more than 1000 participants that “test for retroactive influence by time reversing well-established psychological effects so that the individual’s responses are obtained before the putatively causal stimulus events occur.” (2)
After going through and examining these experiments, Dr. Bern concluded that all but one of them yielded statistically significant results. The paper and experiments are provided within the sources listed.
Again, pre cognition has been well documented and observed in laboratories all over the world. Just because there is a lack of ability for psi research to provide an explanation for the observed phenomena does not discredit the phenomenon itself.
“Historically, the discovery and scientific exploration of most phenomena have preceded explanatory theories, often by decades or even centuries.” ~Dr. Bern (source pg 3)
Another study from Dr. Dean Radin, one of the several authors noted in the first study used in this article conducted four double blind experiments that also show that some intuitive hunches, measured by fluctuations in the autonomic nervous system involve unconscious perception of future events that have yet to occur, and the experiments supported this idea.(3)
Another significant study (meta-analysis) that was published in the Journal of Parapsychology by Charles Honorton and Diane C. Ferrari in 1989, examine a number of studies that were published between 1935 and 1987. The studies involved attempts of individuals to predict “the identity of target stimuli selected randomly over intervals ranging from several hundred million seconds to one year following the individuals responses.”These authors investigated over 300 studies conducted by over 60 authors, using approximately 2 million individual trials by more than 50,000 people. (4)
It concluded that their analysis of precognition experiments “confirms the existence of a small but highly significant precognition effect. The effect appears to be repeatable; significant outcomes are reported by 40 investigators using a variety of methodological paradigms and subject populations. The precognition effect is not merely an unexplained departure from a theoretical chance baseline, but rather is an effect that covaries with factors known to influence more familiar aspects of human performance.” (4)
Why is this type of precognition unconscious? And does it have the potential to become conscious?
Again, as mentioned earlier in the article, the science behind precognition refers to unconscious precognition. This means that the response to future events prior to when they happen is measured through physiological changes, and that seems to be quite clear.
But why should this be the case? If our body (parts of our nervous system) can obtain information about events seconds in the future, why would we not have the inability to not make this information conscious? Maybe we do have that potential.
Researchers in the first study used in this article suggest that this might be the case because the information is not useful, similar to the majority of information that is usually processed unconsciously. They also suggest that the conscious mind may not be able to make such quick decisions. They state “it might be evolutionarily advantageous for unconscious processing to assess upcoming events, filter them, mobilize resources, and only then inform conscious awareness.”(1)
Parapsychological Phenomenon, Consciousness & How They Relate To The Nature Of Our Reality
Precognition is one small aspect of a much larger body of what is termed as parapsychological phenomenon. For more information from CE on some areas of this larger body of information you can check out this article:
If you want to further your research even more, a great place to start would be the The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS)
About the Author
Arjun Walia – I joined the CE team in 2010 and have been doing this ever since. There are many things happening on the planet that don’t resonate with me, and I wanted to do what I could to play a role in creating change. It’s been great making changes in my own life and creating awareness and I look forward to more projects that move beyond awareness and into action and implementation. So stay tuned, firstname.lastname@example.org
**This article was originally featured at Collective Evolution.
Could e-cigarettes be a gateway drug toward smoking traditional cigarettes? For teens and young adults, the answer may be yes, according to a new paper published by JAMA Pediatrics.
The study, which tracked the habits of nearly 700 young people over a year, revealed that young nonsmokers who showed no interest in smoking were more likely to take up the habit if they had used electronic cigarettes.
E-cigarettes heat a liquid filled with nicotine and other (often flavored) chemicals that can be inhaled as a vapor. It’s generally considered to be less dangerous than traditional cigarettes, whose smoke generated by burning tobacco-based products is filled with cancer-causing chemicals.
As e-cigarette use, or vaping, has grown, experts have hotly debated whether it offers a net benefit or net harm to consumers, and whether e-cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products are. Some have pointed to a potential to help wean smokers off traditional cigarettes. Others have said that the devices, often marketed with child-friendly flavors, could introduce more young people to nicotine addiction that could later develop into a full-blown tobacco smoking habit.
To see whether there was a link, researchers from the University of Pittsburgh, Dartmouth University and the University of Oregon surveyed young people from around the U.S. who had never smoked traditional cigarettes and who were not susceptible to smoking at the time.
A person’s susceptibility to smoking was evaluated by two questions: “If one of your friends offered you a cigarette, would you try it?” And, “Do you think you will smoke a cigarette sometime in the next year?”
Those surveyed could choose “definitely yes,” “probably yes,” “probably no” or “definitely no” – but if they chose anything other than “definitely no,” they were not included in the study. This left the researchers with 694 nonsmoking participants with no stated desire to smoke traditional cigarettes.
A small number of these participants who had expressed zero interest in smoking cigarettes (16, to be exact) had previously used electronic cigarettes. The scientists then followed up with the participants a year later, to see whether they had progressed toward smoking traditional, combustible cigarettes. This meant one of two things: Either they no longer said “definitely no” to either of the above questions, indicating that their resolve against cigarettes had faded; or they had actually ended up smoking traditional cigarettes.
The researchers also controlled for a number of factors, including sex, age, race/ethnicity and mother’s level of education.
The researchers found that 11 out of 16 of the e-cigarette users, or nearly 69%, had progressed toward smoking. Five had changed their answers from “definitely no,” and six had actually smoked cigarettes – despite their previous lack of interest. Among the 678 participants who had not previously smoked e-cigarettes, 128 (or just under 19%) had progressed toward smoking, 63 no longer said “definitely no” to future cigarette smoking, and 65 had actually ended up smoking.
“These results raise concerns that the many adolescents and young adults who initiate nicotine use through e-cigarettes are at substantially increased risk for later use of cigarettes, even if they do not intend to smoke cigarettes in the future,” the study authors wrote. “Thus, while e-cigarettes may potentially represent a product that can reduce harm for established cigarette smokers, they may simultaneously contribute to the development of a new population of cigarette smokers.”
The researchers did, however, note that their sample of the teens and young adults who had used e-cigarettes was quite low, just 2.3% of the overall sample.
“It could be interpreted that this small number may not translate into substantial risk,” they wrote. “However, data published in 2015 suggest that large numbers of youth are initiating e-cigarette use and that as many as half of these individuals do not smoke traditional combustible cigarettes.”
A recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that rates of e-cigarette use among high schoolers jumped from 4.5% in 2013 to 13.4% in 2014 – tripling the rate in just one year.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is in the process of considering whether to impose regulations on e-cigarettes.
“At a time when many claim to be uncertain about the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and argue for more studies, these data provide strong longitudinal evidence that e-cigarette use leads to smoking, most likely owing to nicotine addiction,” Jonathan D. Klein, associate executive director of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote in an editorial in JAMA Pediatrics accompanying the study. “We do not need more research on this question…. What we still need is the political will to act on the evidence and protect our youth.”
Follow @aminawrite on Twitter for more science news.
Source. LA Times.