Carl-Richard

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

*Psycho expecting me to care about some posturing/shaming/psycho-tactic of them withdrawing their flailing 'approval' which changes whenever it suits them in the conversation instead of actually engaging.* You psychopaths are all the same. So concerned about dishing out petty shit, but not actually engaging. If you want my approval, actually engage. Until then, ignore list.

Anyways, ignoring all of the retarded vacuous non-argumentation about nothing at all that the other person on the ignore list also engages for some reason that we could only infer: so what do you think about Dr. Cardeña's American Psychologist review, particularly the 108 studies on the Ganzfeld effect?

I was pointing out a performative contradiction in you claiming to be bored while still engaging. How is that "bad faith"?

Explain what the fuck was "bad faith" with anything I've said.

Lack of argument detracts. Lack of consistency with prior statements detracts. Literally lying detracts. Such as:

Sometimes communication also depends on the person creating the signals. What even is this. You don't have to be logically consistent or consistent with what you said earlier either, you know, having just a modicum of integrity. Shady behavior gets called out. Makes a scene about leaving. Suddenly the discussion is about you. What a surprise. You came here to have a discussion and now you're leaving. That's the frame people in this thread will agree on. Your pity frame is likely soelly your own, just like your common sense frame.

You're lying. This is like uncanny, you're using the same language as the person on the ignore list. "Emotionally reactive". And of course without providing an argument. Let me also show you what "emotionally reactive" looks like: It's all projection with you guys. You're not bored, you're bored engaging using arguments and "common sense". Evident by your continued engagement following the exact trajectory I've described, "pretending to exit and poisoning the well". This is exactly the same psycho tactics that I put on my ignore list. Let it be clear yet again that the person above is now "leaving" the discussion after I provided the exact kind of evidence he was asking for and without responding to anything about that evidence.

@Jirh And if you think it was odd that I stopped responding to a specific selection of your posts at one point, I had written an elaborate answer to it and it got deleted so I "lost interest" for a while. And the further delay is because I have what you can call a life at this point in time.

You sound like the only other person on my ignore list. After a long discussion on a topic you purport to have spent a lot of time thinking about in your freetime: "I don't actually care". And only conveniently after dropping a 20+ study meta-analysis and a huge thousand-study review, the types of evidence you were desperately begging for. It was just oddly out of touch with the discussion the way you started to talk about "the general view" in that situation, that was all. A bit like when you defined "common sense" as "rationality". What, you expect me to give something I don't have? Same psycho argumentation as the person on the ignore list. Could've smelled it from a mile away. Almost like I'm a psychic. When losing the argument, do the ad hominem, pretend to exit the discussion and poison the well. Perfect exit tactic. Make no opportunity for a well-thought through discussion. And of course, deny that what you are doing is actually what you are doing. The "cult" was a Discord group where people chatted. You're in a cult right now. I was entirely skeptical of the group, just like this one. The reason I called it a cult was because I could see the odd beliefs and the effect they had on me despite my skepticism. And while in the group, I was entirely skeptical of psychic phenomena; now I'm less skeptical. Somehow I wasn't bought into "special knowledge" views then. Perhaps your desperate ad hominem is just that; a desperate, lousy, pathetic ad hominem. Or perhaps I am a starry eyed fanatic. Still, doesn't fare well for you not being able to argue against a purportedly irrational, drooling, pre-rational, lack of common sense fanatic. You should be wiping the floor with every single statement I say. Or maybe "you can't argue with an idiot". Then I say: argue with Dr. Cardeña, Kastrup, Sheldrake. All Dr's btw. Argue against someone with the scientific rigor you so praise.

I can turn into an alien but can't read your thoughts. We're just experiencing the "the critics won't even look at the evidence" meme in a culture where this supposedly does not happen. Kuhn's observations still apply. Paradigms survive sociologically way past their scientific expiry date. "Science progresses one funeral at a time" — Max Planck.

1. I have responded to everything that you have engaged me with, granted the non-linear chronology. 2. No you seem indecisive and you're leaving for reasons other than what has been recently provided. Cardeña's review is exactly what you have been asking for. It's not "absolute relativism".

I've never heard somebody pleading to use "common sense" in a philosophical discussion before. Seems either neurodivergent or ad hoc use of the term. I don't think there is a reference point. There is just two perspectives with claimed similarity. The "realness" concept is just a way we want to ground the fact that they're similar. And we usually grant it to physical phenomena. Whether we also grant it to psychical phenomena is what we're trying to discuss. You mean less people claim to have psychical connections than physical ones? Probably yes. You're equivocating on "identical" and "similar" here; I never claimed "identical" in terms of experience; perspectival knowing never is. And I think your reasoning is circular (or it serves no purpose). How do you know how rare it is such that one can't have multiple witnesses? 1. "73% endorsing at least one of ten purported psi phenomena" — https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx. 2. r/psychic -> shared dreams. Not always. The consistency of many things is very consistent. But there are cases of novelty and ambiguity where we doubt our own sanity and we start going through the ways which we deem something to be real. For example thinking you heard somebody call your name but you were not sure, or you saw somebody who looked like a celebrity but you weren't sure. "Did you see that?" Psychic phenomena could be thought to exist in that category (most of the time for most people). That's naive and not the reality. Feel free to explain why Dr. Cardeña's review of thousands of psi studies goes unnoticed. Already addressed this. You seem to make a point that technology makes psychic connections more likely to be asserted. I'm just trying to eliminate the technology from the equation and see if you're still applying the same standards. Again, many of the experiences are local to my life and have nothing to do with "technology". It's a vacuous argument. "Coincidences are expected". Sure. Now tell me when you think something is a coincidence vs not. Equivocating on "disprove" (you can't "disprove" the way I'm attaching meaning to something in the same way "disprove" is defined initially). "Impossibly unlikely" is literally, explictly, a contradiction, you should be able to pick up that as you're reading it. Your definition of "common sense" and you assuming I should know about it implicitly through cultural knowledge, is implicit. A whole another level. The point was you're calling me pre-rational when I'm engaging with you with post-"rational" philosophical frameworks (Popper called himself a [critical] rationalist; Kuhn and Lakatos provided critiques to Popper and are in that sense post-"rational"). Not that it's the most pivotal point.

I just thought about how to capture the sonic/aesthetic aspects of the genres of death metal and black metal in images: Death metal: the Balrog scene from The Lord Of The Rings movies. Monsters, heavy, big. Black metal: the Grim Reaper riding a white, dead, skulled horse in freezing cold winter in the snow (this is an actual black metal album cover when I think of it). Ghosts, skeletal, thin, screechy. Ironically, black metal becomes more about death and death metal becomes more about demons and perhaps Satan. Sample songs: Death - Zombie Ritual. Emperor - Towards The Pantheon.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

It is possible to simply stumble into playing in a way that sounds good without learning too much about scales but rather learning songs that use scales. In fact I think those who know very little about scales but play intuitively come up with some of the most interesting music. Mikael Akerfeldt from Opeth is one example: 2:30-3:12 Chuck Shuldiner is another: 4:00-4:20

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a26cd3e-d82c-83eb-9d2d-85e5e78f0ed3

I invent the white pill: no inner or outer game, perfect non-duality. "Do-nothing", just be, don't flee, see, feel, touch, smell.

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-evidence-for-the-most-compelling-psi-phenomena/seeing/

Absolutely brutal.

Ooo, a 2025 meta-analysis on 26 telecommunication telepathy experiments found overall positive results: https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/download/25934/24357/74647 The telephone telepathy study I mentioned and which you said others have failed to replicate have actually been successfully replicated in various settings. This is not uncommon for even "rigorous" scientific in fields like behavioral science, biotech; if a study is even attempted replicated (which is actually rare), you tend to get some replications and some failed replications (read about the "replication crisis"). And even if you get some successful replications (or only successful ones), you could be wrong about what you're actually testing (the proposed relationships could be spurious or influenced by confounding factors). So scientific evidence is also strictly only something that adds credence, it's not strictly in the realm of "debunking". Especially something like telepathy, which can be dependent on state of mind and which can be influenced by the experimental situation itself, could be simply not picked up as much in experimental research, and that would be a limitation of the methods and not reflective of the underlying phenomena it is trying to test.

You have not actually "debunked" anything. You have brought up kinds of things I've already considered. The tension between "coincidence" and reality has always been there. It's just you seem to think categorically "coincidence" wins every time for psychic phenomena. Yet there is no clear standard for this, you just point to some arguments and assert they debunk it in aggregate, but you fail to explain exactly why they should debunk it and the scenarios which they don't debunk it. If you can give the exact criteria for when you consider psychic phenomena or epistemically analogous physical scenarioes to not be "debunked" (and that it does seem to be categorically grounded and not some arbitrary accumulation of criteria), then you have a point. My point is that the way you judge something to be real is always an "arbitrary" accumulation of criteria, it's always a statistical case of weighing your credence for a hypothesis. So expecting to "debunk" something is the wrong expectation, you can only expect to persuade through making someone consider things they have not considered (and assume they are consistent in the application of their own criteria). That's why I'm asking for a physical analogy for the five criteria that I would not believe to be real. Then maybe I'll find something I've not considered.

When things get sufficiently removed from oneself into the past, we start to view it more through aesthetic than the brutal factual reality. We see this with the Vikings, pirates, Romans, Spartans. We start viewing them as cool, even noble somehow, perhaps despite the factual reality, and we even identify with them. Look at the Norwegian football fans during the World Cup role-playing as Vikings with their "Ro!" chant. The Vikings were essentially what Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida are today. Violent, ruthless killers, slaughtering everyone in their way, doing surprise attacks on larger cities and settlements. Norwegians are terrified of Islamic terrorists, yet they identify with the Vikings. The distinction is the separation of the far past and the immediate threat towards their survival. Remove the immediate threat to survival and you start viewing them in a different light. "But their ideology is different, that's why Norwegians don't like Islamic terrorists". Yes, different from their own, so it threatens their survival because it threathens them now. But is it really different from the ideology of the Vikings if you look at the pure structure rather than the content? Violent Islamic jihadism is not really that dissimilar from violent Norse paganism. Also, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, who couldn't be more different from oneself ideologically, also get the aesthetic treatment. There is even the idea that they were somehow enlightened or peaceful, living in perfect harmony with nature with egalitarian and matriarchical tribal structures, when that probably couldn't be further from the truth. This image crashes immediately once you replace "pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers" with "uncontacted jungle savages", and you see how when you meet these people in the present, you will end up with an arrow through your eye before anything else you can "gather" from them (talk about "aesthetics"). And of course, pirates get the Johnny Depp treatment, the Romans get the "every movie ever made about Ancient Rome" treatment, Spartans get the movie "300" treatment, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if 1000 years into the future and if violent Islamic jihadism has somehow become a thing of the past, Norwegians (or whatever they're called) start viewing violent Islamic jihadists as something cool, a bit like pirates, or the Vikings.

( @Jirh It's gonna be tough to clear up the responses when I have the time and I'm not tired, but I will do it when I have the time and I'm not tired). You can distinguish between apparent convergence (the evidence) and actual convergence (what you're trying to prove), you don't have to call it a contradiction. You do this frame thing where you create an error where it doesn't necessarily have to exist. You're assuming the TV recording is an actual recording and not say from a movie, or a fictional TV show, or some kind of AI-generated clip. It can be anything. It looks very real, but its source is ambiguous. That's a proposed physical mechanism for an actual recording, but you can give mechanisms for the dreams as well (I do in the next paragraphs). It's not backwards in time (not that it fundamentally matters, but in terms of degree of credence). It's temporally parallel. When you're asleep dreaming, you're dreaming about the event at the same time as it is happening in real life (you find out about it afterwards). The information does not have to travel in "time", only "space" (non-locally), outwards like electromagnetic radiation (if we are to use a physical analogy; of course, reality need not necessarily work that way). Here is a proposed mechanism (in line with morphic resonance): stronger event in terms of emotional significance (or simply "significance"), stronger "signal" is sent out, easier picked up (resonated with), especially when in an altered state of consciousness like sleep where usual egoic blinders are not as much in the way. That's how you would explain when you lose signal on your phone when there is bad service or your wireless headset when you go too far from your phone (the information disappears because the signal is too weak). "But how do we test it?" I linked a study which you tried to debunk with an AI response (I haven't responded to it yet), but honestly Tom Campbell's personal stories (watch his JRE appearance) where he actually claims to gather useful information from reality non-locally is perhaps another path of inquiry ("charlatan" - judge for yourself, see if he comes off as genuine or some kind of ego-maniac; I personally think he is Enlightened). 1. Let's find a better analogy, maybe we have to go into the jungle again, and 2. except if somebody else dreamt the same thing (and perhaps they were together with you in the dream and they verify that). Shared dreams (as far as they are claimed to be shared) are known to happen. "But how can you know you dreamt the same thing? You and they only have access to their own dream". How do you know we see the same thing? Same fundamental problem there, give or take certain kinds of consistency. Again, I want you to find an analogy of a 'physical' situation that follows the five criteria and which I don't believe is real. And if the burning TV example was difficult, imagine if you instead saw PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of his own house in the TV clip, then later the same day (or perhaps plus minus a week or so given the conditions I gave) you see his YouTube video explaining that this in fact happened to him. That would definitely get your mind in a certain direction.