In the book, Tesla: Man Out of Time, by Margaret Cheney, she quoted Nikola Tesla, who talked about having, “A peculiar affliction due to the appearance of images, often accompanied by strong flashes of light, which marred the sight of real objects and interfered with my thought and action. They were pictures of things and scenes which I had really seen, never of those I imagined. When a word was spoken to me, the image of the object it designated would present itself vividly to my vision and sometimes I was quite unable to distinguish whether what I saw was tangible or not.” Cheney continues, “In the stillness of the night, the vivid picture of a funeral he had seen or some other disturbing scene would thrust itself before his eyes, so that even if he jabbed his hand through it, it would remain fixed in space.” What can Creator tell us about this ability of Tesla’s? Does Marilu Henner see her memories in a similar fashion?

Here the capabilities are similar but not identical. Hers was more of a memory recall perceived and displayed visually within the mind, whereas his was a dynamic interaction with visual imagery that could be recalled, displayed in exquisite detail, and then inventively reworked and altered with modifications, all within his mind, without resorting to sketches and a drawing board. This was a tremendous asset because the power of consciousness and the built-in ways of perceiving it are often much more sensitive and exquisite than anything that could be reproduced in an artificial way, like pen and paper. There are many tremendous artists with fantastic imaginations who can conceive of the most elaborate imagery within the mind alone. This is a talent your channel possesses, yet he does not translate it into a physical representation to share with others; only if you could plug into his consciousness, so to speak, would you perceive it. To do so, he would have to work at the craft of rendering it with pen and ink, or brushstrokes and paint, and develop that physical capability to render what is in his mind's eye, and often the work done by artists is but a crude approximation of the inner vision within the consciousness and the inner awareness of the artist. So these talents are revealing something very, very important about the exquisite nature of the human being and will not be exhibited by each person to the same degree. This is no different than any other kind of talent where there is a spectrum of capabilities using any kind of measurement, whether physical or sensory, or using cognitive function as a criterion and factoring in the depth, reliability, and accuracy of memory, degree of creative ability to generate something wholly novel, and perhaps unique in all the world. Everything the human does is profound, in some way, in comparison to some criteria looking at things objectively. You take much of this for granted and it is only in the unusual display, as you are describing with some of these examples, where the curiosity is there to wonder at it and a desire kindled to understand it more deeply. This, in essence, is the point of your questions, that science takes so much for granted and refuses to accept the highly unusual, and thereby misses the greatest opportunities to gain a kind of quantum leap beyond the prosaic thinking that constrains things, and prevents progress in fully understanding the reach of the human being using their consciousness as a tool.