Jirh

Yes, it is difficult, because obviousness here is defined mainly based on feeling or intuition and subjective personal opinion, which is impossible to align between a small group of people, let alone 8 billion people. Everything is possible. Anything can be true. I could be a bird typing with my beak. Who knows? And so what? We can speculate and keep guessing infinitely. That doesn't get us any closer to truth. Speculation and guesswork is the foundation of pseudoscience. I'm not interested in that. No, I don't think it's technically possible to feel other people's energies. I think that we make guesses based on familiar patterns from memory, and these guesses may or may not align with the reality of the other person. We may feel the guess, depending on how sensitive and open we are in that moment, but we can't technically feel the other person, not really. The better someone is at making good guesses, the higher their empathy is considered to be. We may disagree on the labels but, that's alright. In that case, I don't think psychic phenomenon is real. As long as you can't really tell apart a psychic telling from random noise with any amount of certainty, then it's not real, and you're imagining it. How about this? The next time you experience a psychic telling, write it down immediately. Post it on the forum if you like. Own it. Make it public. Poke my eyes with it. Don't leave any room for doubt. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's alright. I see no problem with that. I mean emotional sensitivity like closeness, intimacy, and deep familiarity with something. You're doing fine. I actually find your posts a lot clearer and easier to understand and digest that Carl's posts.

I wonder what would happen when back-end stuff comes into the picture. For a simple portfolio website, it seems fine. But for more complex integrative apps, I doubt it will be as easy. There are many details that need to be set manually to connect the different parts of an app together. And debugging is not so easy even with the best AIs. I guess we'll find out soon.

It is great, very artistic. I like it. Oh no, relax. It's not stealing. GitHub is free, and developers use it to upload their code, track changes, and to showcase and share with others. Yes, that is good. It has clear UI and easy UX. No problem. I'm happy for you too. May it mark the beginning of more success! Good luck!

It doesn't make anyone unique if everyone wears the same shirt in different colors

Just checked it out, it's astounding. I like your work! But it's also very cookie-cutter. A few months ago, my friend vide-coded one with the exact same color theme and general layout and effects. Did you choose anything in specific? Probably behind the scenes, the AI is pulling from a few number of templates on Github. Maybe only one? But at this point, I don't think it can replace human web developers because it's just too generic. When enough people make websites and many of them look alike, there won't be any special identity to anyone.

You keep going back to this nonsense. You are trying to equalize all inferences by ignoring the significance of historical data. Lack of basic common sense. Let me respond to your useless and mostly unfalsifiable criteria once and for all: Content match is subjective/relative, vague, and ambiguous. Emotional significance is a fertile soil for confirmation bias, we remember the dreams that impacted us the most. Selective time match where you count your hits and ignore your misses. First occurrence relies on your feeling of novelty, which can be wrong. Do you keep a log of all your dreams? What else?

Help me make sense of what you said. I don't understand.

That could apply before, when free speech was an issue. Luckily, that isn't the case anymore. You're ignoring the huge environment upgrade that happened. My assessment is that the current scientific rigor is as best as it can get. It's really mostly a mechanical process at this point. There's not much discrimination against any ideas. They just have to be qualified enough to pass. I looked it up using DeepSeek. Nothing to conclude from that. No proof of anything. The study itself is criticized harshly, and an independent replicate of it failed to reproduce the same results. The medium from which you got the news is irrelevant. It's the fact that the news was even allowed into your perception in the first place; that's the elephant in the room that you're still missing. Without knowing that a tornado actually happened, you'd think it's just some random nightmare. But because you had that specific knowledge that it actually happened somewhere on the planet, your mind made that connection between your dream and real life. You're now convinced that there's some meaningful connection there. Am I not being clear here? This is like the 3rd time I'm explaining this point. True, but that's not my point. I'm not using it to judge possibility or account for anything. It's just stating that everything is possible if the sample size is large enough, regardless of how unlikely it might seem. And we do have a large sample size of all human experience (billions of people living for 60+ years), so nothing out of the ordinary there. The law doesn't disprove psychic phenomenon. It disproves the value and meaning you're attaching to it, and consequently the way you believe it works. I actually know that psychic phenomenon is true. It's just not what you want it to be. You can read my posts earlier in this thread where I elaborated on this point. Alright, you're allowed to be figurative, but I have to be literal. Ok, I guess. 🙄 I just didn't understand what that statement had to do with anything. Thought the emojis would express my feeling succinctly.

Rationality and common sense are loosely synonymous in modern era. But alright, I will be more literal around you. In most cultures, you need at least two witnesses to call something a fact, it's a known rule in many judicial systems. But you're just one person. It's always just one person. The other person who actually experienced the thing first-hand is the reference point, so you can't include them. It's literally impossible to tell apart a psychic signal from random noise. The distinction and meaning are always asserted after the fact. But let's be generous and ignore that for a moment, it's still way less likely to assert that two persons have experienced similar psychic tellings. And it's even way way less likely to assert that their experiences were identical. So, due to the factor of extreme rarity/scarcity, you basically can't have multiple witnesses. The internet being available and cheap for 6 billion people makes your case even worse because you have 6 billion people for witnesses and they are failing you. Keep in mind that the internet is basically human life log, so timing and instant recognition is not an issue. Witnesses can write something and forget about it, and it will remain evidence. But there's no such thing. You never have any evidence. Your idea of convergence of sensory streams is nonsense because it's always just one person. Compare that with the abundance of matching reports from normal waking people, our perceptions are identical between all of us every single time, regardless of the relativity of how each one of us may be perceiving things, the reports are always consistent, nevertheless. You cannot compare this with that. It's just absurd to even attempt that.

Because there is no way to verify psychic phenomenon. This is the crux of the problem. You can't even tell a psychic event from a regular event. No one can. What am I supposed to verify then? Every moment in history? Should I search all of history and give you each matching event to someone's dream? Then after that, I can apply the scientific method and use statistics to show the results? I am no AI, but even AI can't do that. Not even a quantum AI can do that. However, what I am suggesting you should verify is accessible for anyone. Go study the scientific method. Study statistics. Study rationality. Study epistemology. Then if you don't find what I'm saying convincing, come back and argue some more. Alchemy is not pseudoscience. It's protoscience; a preliminary form of science. It used valid methods as a foundation, even if primal at that time, but they were fundamentally correct. What are the methods of psychic signal collection? Nothing. Literally. There are no methods except sit there and wait. Maybe something will happen. Maybe not. It's up to luck. Or better yet, go to sleep. Maybe you'll see saint Mary or Jesus. But wait, what if they told you to wake up and stop believing in psychic phenomenon? How would you handle that error?

Then go verify it instead of arguing with me.

No. I am not talking about ego corruption here. I'm addressing the raw phenomenon.

You still can't distinguish between true psychic signals and meaningless happenings. And no amount of claiming or thinking something is higher consciousness can fix this problem. What if me telling you this right now is a psychic signal from higher consciousness that you're ignoring because it's too direct and too strong of a signal? Or do you consider it lower consciousness? Does it have to be a weak, indirect , subtle, rare signal to appear on the psychic radar? Do you need to see it in a dream to believe it? Well, in this case, you're in luck, because life is a dream! Let alone the myths and magical thinking. The Bible is full of logical fallacies and errors and inconsistencies. At best, it was a failed attempt to get into rationality. It's precisely what a pre-rational mind that's trying to evolve would produce.

I'll give you that it might be a function of lower consciousness, because it's pre-rational. Who knows?! Maybe early humans had nothing else to hang on to except these subtle weak signals. Still, why bother even thinking about that when the better alternative is present? The biggest problem still remains that you can never know when something is a psychic signal and when it isn't. There's no way to verify anything. Humanity had held the belief in such things across many different cultures and traditions for thousands of years. You'd think at this point we would have developed some tangible mechanism to differentiate a true seeing from the regular meaningless ones, even if that mechanism is not perfectly accurate. But to my knowledge, there's literally nothing except delusion. Some animals seem to use similar ways of thinking to navigate reality because they don't have better alternatives. It's just the limits of their minds. Ultimately, rationality and science align with higher consciousness more than magical thinking. Not that magical thinking is always wrong or that rationality and science are always right, but that one side is clearly superior to the other, and by a large margin. One side offers clarity, the other offers delusions. Big difference. If psychic signals were from higher consciousness, then God clearly doesn't care about us. Why? Because they're rare, clouded with ambiguity, unreliable, inconsistent, confusing, even cruel sometimes. Why would I have to experience a tornado to know that it's going to happen?! No, thanks. I'd rather remain clueless if you're not asking for my permission and if it's going to happen anyway. (The last one is for you @Carl-Richard)

@Human Mint If you have anything to say about the topic, I'm happy to engage. Otherwise, I think I said what needed to be said. So, let's end it here.

@Human Mint 😭

@Human Mint 😴

I think science has enough open-mindedness. Standards are rigor are not the enemy of open-mindedness. They are necessary to keep the balance. The enemy is sloppiness. I agree. These are great fixes. Many scientists are lacking in these areas because of hyper-specialisation and department segregation. I think epistemology and science should be in parallel. How? What should change? I agree. Huge thumbs up 👍🏻

I think the biggest part of the problem for men in modern dating is that they stand in their own way. Most girls out there actually want to have sex with or without relationship settings. They literally desire sex possibly more than many men do. They're turned on by default. They even go out shaved and cleaned just in case lol. Your only job as a man is to not turn them off. That's it.

@Leo Gura

If there was a psychic person with real psychic abilities, they would be the most famous person alive. Why? Because they would be able to showcase their powers on YouTube and IG and everywhere online. We only need one person in order to prove pre-rational psychic abilities. But that one person doesn't exist. Spiritual awakening is a private inner experience/transformation. It's not a claim about external reality. It's a deep understanding of it.

It's not about ambiguity. It's about leaps of faith. Literally nothing of true significance happens, and some people call it psychic phenomenon. Someone telling a story about some dream they had is not a psychic telling. It's just a highly patched up coincidence. Often, there's a lot of mental legwork that goes into it than appears. Like I said to Carl from the beginning, you need to first establish that the connection you're proposing is real or of significance before you can make attempts at explaining the connection. My claim is that the connection doesn't exist at all. You're imagining it. You're referring to pre-rational psychic phenomenon; that magical phenomenon of unmediated mind connection. This idea is based on the assumption that the mind is non-local, or universal, or connected to other minds in some mysterious ways. That's all.. I don't know, weak, for lack of a better word. There is literally nothing to support those ideas except weak anecdotal reports that can be easily dismissed due to lack of coherence and consistency. What I am suggesting instead, is that true psychic phenomenon actually exists in the things we see and use daily and take for granted like our phones and laptops. We are literally connecting with other minds without space and time limitations. Isn't that enough to consider telepathy/psychic? Just because it's mediated and has clear mechanisms doesn't make it any less magical, quite the opposite actually, the more I learn about and understand how technology works, the deeper my appreciation grows. It's absolutely astounding! I don't mean emotional sensitivity here in this context. I mean logical sensitivity. You need logical sensitivity to spot the magic. After the first actual seeing you will need emotional sensitivity to feel it more and more. Logic is the initial spark. Emotion is how deeply you understand the phenomenon; how intimate you are with it. Luckily, I have both when it comes to this topic. It's absolutely obvious and evident for me that psychic phenomenon exists and that it is magic. It's just not what you guys think it is. We can predict the weather now with much more accuracy than ever. No psychic across history could do what we can now. A 10-day forecast is only accurate about 50% of the time, but a 5-day forecast is accurate about 90% of the time. That's clearly precognition and clairvoyance in its most literal forms. Literally, ancient people used to have psychics predict the weather for them to set sail or not. We are now capable of doing the exact same job with much more accuracy, using well-known mechanisms. It's not a secret anymore. The mechanisms are clear as day and not ambiguous at all. Anyone can access the method and even add to it if they can. It's all available for free. These are tremendously valuable features of science. But we are fish swimming in the magic of science, it's hard to spot let alone feel the magic when it's everywhere around. And instead, we seek magic in the rare and unreliable things. We mistake rarity for value and abundance for lack thereof.

Aren't we all your kids in a way?

To me, common sense is more like a stepping stone towards higher truths. It's the base that I like to stand upon in my search for truth, so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel in everything every single time. They might be. But to me, deception is not a state of being. It's the attitude of being closed-minded.

Ok.