Jirh

@Elliott

The global illiteracy rate for adults (aged 15 and over) is approximately 13%, meaning around 87% of the world’s population has at least basic reading and writing skills. This equates to roughly 773 million illiterate adults globally, with women disproportionately affected, accounting for nearly two-thirds of the total. The remaining illiterate population is heavily concentrated in specific regions, primarily South Asia, West Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. In areas like Niger, literacy rates can be as low as 19%. Conversely, developed nations consistently boast adult literacy rates of 96% to 99%. .. That's a simple Google search about illiteracy rates. Most people are literate and educated and rational. Hence, rationality is common sense nowadays. You can stop detailing the thread now.

Exactly my point. Look here: And here: But apparently, that's not magical or supernatural enough for many people. They overlook the supernatural because it's too abundant, and they close their eyes and look for it elsewhere. Like fish in water, swimming in magic, unable too see.

You're misreading the context. I'm not saying Carl has no sense at all. I'm saying he's lacking it here when he's thinking about paranormal phenomenon. And he confirmed that he is openly against common sense in this particular area. Anyway, let's not derail the thread any further.

Yeah, and Carl does not have that. He did not deny it when I said it.

@Elliott A general video won't help. Use your own words to explain how I used the term out of context. Note that Carl himself said he doesn't agree with common sense.

Already addressed above. What do you have of him that you think is credible enough to make a conclusion? I read about him on Wikipedia. His work is mostly classified as pseudo-science. It's the biggest factor. Without technology, you wouldn't have possibly known that the tornado occurred at all. All the other pieces of information are completely meaningless without that specific knowledge. Even if you believe in precognition, and even if everyone around you believes in your precognition, you will not possibly have any chance to prove your insight without technology. Of course, the point here is not to appreciate technology, but to dismantle the silly reasoning that ignores the elephant in the room. The law of truly large numbers is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's actually more in alignment with reality than your precious precognition. The law of truly large numbers says that everything is possible with enough time and attempts. Things vary in likelihood of occurrence, but nothing is impossibly unlikely like you suggested. When unlikely things happen, the law doesn't panic, because it's already accounted for it. It just doesn't give it the meaning or importance that you want. 🙄🤷‍♂️

Help me understand. I'm stupid.

Here's the AI summary from the first Google search of the exact term: Common sense is the basic, practical judgment and everyday reasoning that people use to navigate life safely and efficiently. It relies on fundamental cause-and-effect understanding and social awareness rather than specialized training. It is the foundation of sound decision-making in daily situations.

Consistency is the keyword here. Credibility is created through consistency. The matching dream is a rare, one-off occurrence in a lifetime, if at all. While other waking people's reports are consistent every single time. That's why your dream is not credible and other waking people's perceptions are. If you could find a way to extend the matching dreams beyond rare singular occurrences, then maybe you'd have a chance at gathering consensus.

Common sense and rationality are requirements for any serious discussion. Philosophical or otherwise. Because the only way to get to post-rationality is through rationality, not without it. Rationality is not an obstacle towards post-rationality. The lack of it is. Post-rationality is just rationality taken to its logical conclusion, which is self-destruction. Refusing to accept common sense will produce pre/trans effects.

Nah, it's precognition. But you don't like it because it's not yours

You asked: Why is "that doesn't happen usually" relevant? It's relevant because it's not what most people who claim paranormal give. They don't usually give a point by point resembling story. It's often a loosely resembling one with multiple patches to make it sound more like it. And even those are rare enough to dismiss. The even more rarer examples that are more resembling are enough to consider a coincidence, nothing more. That's how I would think if there was no alternative way of thinking like rationality. That's why it's pre-rational. Okay, let's say there's psychic phenomenon. The thing is: we cannot control it or reproduce it. And more importantly, we cannot even tell whether it is occurring or not when it's occuring. We don't know when a dream or a thought is a psychic telling and when they aren't. And no amount of intuition or personal feelings or desperation for an answer can fix this problem. I'm flattered 😂 The relevance is in the example I gave right afterwards. Without the technology that made it possible for you know about a tornado happening miles away from you, you couldn't possibly have made that leap of faith that it was a precognitive dream. You based a big part of your reasoning on the knowledge that your dream actually happened in reality. But you could have easily missed that particular news. 500 years ago, you wouldn't even have the slightest idea that it happened at all. Unless you're suggesting that every thought we have and every dream we experience resemble some actual life event, which is totally nuts, and I don't think you are. I can reproduce the reasoning to anyone, and they will most likely agree with me, even you will likely agree. That's rationality. Nothing is impossibly unlikely according to the law of truly large numbers. It's not likely, but it can happen. We call that a coincidence. It's pre-rational because it existed before rationality because rationality was not established yet. People had to cling to myths and magical thinking to explain life. That's not enlightenment. That's just lack of proper mental capacity.

Most AI chatbots that I've interacted with so far are more intelligent than most humans. They understand what I say more precisely than anyone I know like 95% of the time, even when I am being brief and vague.

You're smart enough to know why. That's the core of your faulty reasoning.

I'll give you the same answer you gave me: Where do you draw the line? When is something enough for you to consider paranormal/precognition? Example: I am using the English language to communicate with you. Jesus Christ! That must indicate something paranormal for you if you know how to connect the dots. But you're probably too blind and closed-minded to see. This is common and typical in schizophrenics. They make strange delusional connections and call them truth. Don't you see how it's your mind largely making things up and slicing the cake in the way that fits its delusions? And you would have no idea that it happened miles away from you without technology. You forgot the elephant in the room. Imagine experiencing the same dream 500 years ago. If you're rational, you'd just think it's a nightmare. Or if you're superstitious, you'd keep waiting for it to happen and possibly alarm everyone around you. The video didn't work. I cannot discuss this. From a practical perspective, I would think it's a useless thing, unless you find some way to reproduce it or some utility to it when it occurs. From a truth perspective, I would think it's a coincidence. An extremely unlikely one, but again that's just the law of truly large numbers. I cannot believe I have to answer these questions for someone as smart as you. And that's not a compliment. Open-mindedness does not mean abandoning common sense. I'd say that's trying a bit too hard to paint this as some sort of post-rational thinking, when in fact it's pre-rational at the core. Again, you're just lacking common sense.

@Carl-Richard True, there's no clear differential point. But it's also true that paranormal reasoning is way below the curve. You're making a false equivalency between two completely different experiences. The difference is as clear as day. You don't need much more beyond common sense to see it.

Well, my intuition tells me your map leads to desert In all seriousness, I think following intuition is a continuous process of first-hand verification. So yeah, I agree with you 🤝🏻

True. It's a finger pointing to the moon. How would I know which map is trustworthy and leads to water anyway? I have to verify for myself.

Mind is a map. The map is not the territory.

That's not what happens usually. Usually, it's a rare coincidental experience of loosely resembling story that connects vaguely with multiple patches and leaps of faith to an event. You can't compare normal perception to tales of paranormal. The consistency in perception is nowhere near the inconsistency in those tales. False. Cause and effect as the terms we know are not relative as you're suggesting. A cause is an event that happens first and ends, then another event happens, which is called an effect. For example, you feel thirsty, so you drink a glass of water (cause), then you feel quenched (effect).

@Carl-Richard I've read even more interesting anecdotes back in the day in the book "Twin Telepathy: The Psychic Connection" by Guy Lyon Playfair. He tried to come up with all sorts of hypotheses. One that I remember specifically was biochemical, mainly related to adrenaline and acetylcholine. He said that perhaps we are all connected somehow in our autonomous nervous system, but that connection is maximal and most observable in identical twins. If one twin is in danger, the other will be alarmed. And then he went on and told some interesting stories. I kept his stories and ideas with me, carried them wherever I went. Tried to collect my evidence. But nothing seemed to work the way I expected. Some synchronicities happened, but I couldn't draw any truly meaningful connections. It's all coincidental, I concluded. Anyway, I think I've already given my answers to most of your points. You haven't really moved the post far from where it was. What you said still doesn't escape the law of truly large numbers, base rate neglect, and selection bias.

@Inliytened1 Atoms is a map, a metaphor, a useful fiction at the relative level of human perception. Reality is not made of anything. It's infinite groundlessness.

Mind is a metaphor. Just like atoms.

Ownership is an assumption. Thoughts don't have to be anyone's to be experienced. But that doesn't help your case of non-local awareness.