My dreams are about future real life events?

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, theoneandnone said:

Yeah it further proves solipsism with precognitive dreams.

No it doesn't. It suggests reality is psychic.

Edited October 27, 2025 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

The future is MEOW.

[Carl-Richard]

Bro I swear to god, earlier today when I was vacuuming or making breakfast, I had the thought pop into my head "YouTube channels about psychedelics eventually just turn into trauma dumping channels" for some reason. Then 7 minutes ago, this was posted:

 

This is crazy, if you don't understand, read the original post. I've already had a specific premonition about PsychedSubstance (and that time it was also about his housing situation? 🫥🫠).

@Natasha Tori Maru

Edited May 28 by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard We aren't the owners of our awareness. We claim our own experience - but do we have right to?

Do we assume our awareness is localised?

These questions fall & fly as a vortex of autumn leaves, tantalizing colour... an army of leafy origami cranes terrorizing me and pecking my thoughts...

[Oppositionless]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro I swear to god, earlier today when I was vacuuming or making breakfast, I had the thought pop into my head "YouTube channels about psychedelics eventually just turn into trauma dumping channels" for some reason. Then 7 minutes ago, this was posted:

 

This is crazy, if you don't understand, read the original post. I've already had a specific premonition about PsychedSubstance (and that time it was also about his housing situation? 🫥🫠).

@Natasha Tori Maru

I mentioned the Quentin experiment and how he hadn't posted in years to my friend and like a week later he posted about being a father . I had never mentioned him online or in person to anyone prior.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Oppositionless nonlocal awareness 

[Carl-Richard]

15 hours ago, Oppositionless said:

I mentioned the Quentin experiment and how he hadn't posted in years to my friend and like a week later he posted about being a father . I had never mentioned him online or in person to anyone prior.

Lol, when I had the thought above, I thought about of course PsychedSubstance (I think) and also Quentin Experiment (and also Dakota Of Earth).

But I was also a bit puzzled why I had the thought as it didn't quite make sense that I would put these last two under "trauma dumping" (although Quentin Experiment did talk about taking his break and becoming a dad and it was very personal, but still, it didn't quite fit to me as "trauma dumping"). That said, I haven't watched much Dakota Of Earth either, you could probably find something there, but anyways, I couldn't find the connection.

Anyways, the fact that my thought didn't seem quite logical (it basically only applied to PsychedSubstance alone, which wouldn't really warrant a generalization like that), in hindsight might have been a sign that it was something external I was picking up on and not some intuitive insight born out of seeing connections within my own mind (as they tend to be experienced as significant because they are quite logical or profound in how they connect different things).

I think you @Natasha Tori Maru have commented on this that when you suspect an externally sourced thought, (I believe you said) there is a lack of logic behind them (?), or at least there is something off, like a disjunction, like a sort of randomness in how it occurs. If simply the latter, that would be consistent with what you @Oppositionless are describing with how you had never talked about him before that (and it's consistent with the three original dreams I wrote about in the thread; they seemingly popped out of nowhere, seemed highly deviant compared to the usual dreams).

Edited May 29 by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard @Sugarcoat @Natasha Tori Maru

Alright, guys. I'll preface this by saying that I'd been on the opposite side for almost a decade. Specifically, I used to believe in telepathy, never experienced the belief in precognition, and near the end was almost convinced I'd achieved clairvoyance. My current position is that these are all false beliefs based on faulty logic.

One point that comes to mind is the fallacy of base rate neglect and selection bias, where the data is filtered to fit a desired narrative. You believe in precognition, so you stay alert for it. You watch every thought that passes your mind, while awake or in your dreams. Then when something remotely close happens, your reaction is: "Ha! I knew it!", even though it usually includes multiple patches and leaps of faith to draw together the loose ends. But in doing so, you ignore the fact that you think probably hundreds if not even thousands of different thoughts per day. But you conveniently select the ones that fit your narrative, even if loosely. And then you assume a special connection between that thought and the event that happened. You feel special. Like you are the data center of the universe. The rarity of such coincidences makes them feel even more special. It's part curiosity and part arrogance. You don't just want it to be true, you also want it to be yours. You want to be the one with psychic abilities.

There's also the law of truly large numbers, which states that with a large enough sample size, even highly improbable events become almost certain to occur. Coincidences or "outrages" are therefore statistically expected rather than extraordinary. If you blindfoldedly throw a basketball enough times, you will score eventually.

Lastly, there's the reduction of magic into mundaneness. Life is fundamentally magical. There's infinitely more magic in technology and how we are able to communicate now than there is magic in simple direct telepathy. But because we take everything we have in abundance for granted, the grass looks greener on the other side. If you take a look at what's necessary and what happens for a simple web page to load, you'd be astounded by the magic, your jaws would drop.

Edited yesterday at 09:45 PM by Jirh

[Jirh]

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm careful with these types of beliefs but I still have them.

You want to have them 

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Geniuses believe in telepathy too. https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/the-eldritch-things-famous-rationalists

Well, that's irrelevant.

16 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't "need" it but I still think it happens.

You sure?

[Jirh]

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

You’re talking as if you’re perceiving that belief is the main basis + some experience, rather than the opposite where experience is the basis then belief, interpretations etc build upon them, and also changes with more experiences, hence not so “fixed”.

You are open-minded. That is good.

But I would presume that the order I'm assuming is the correct order. You want psychic phenomenon to be true, and so you collect whatever crumbs of "evidence" you can.

2 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

I feel like your comparison is only valuable if someone would try to use telepathy as main communication or something, we’re using technology every day, psychic stuff, more or less obvious, only adds to it rather than subtract

It doesn't really add anything, and it does subtract. Instead of appreciating what's right here, i.e. the majesty of this miracle of technology, we are distracted looking for alternative and more primal means of communication. Why? Because it feels more magical that way. But maybe the problem is our sensitivity to the magic of right here and now.

Besides, if psychic phenomenon was real, everyone would know it by now.

[Carl-Richard]

@Jirh

For these kinds of experiences, there are alternative hypotheses, yes. But the hypothesis that it's real seems more convincing. And there are other reasons to believe in psychic phenomena. Essentia Foundation has various good videos on the topic, Rupert Sheldrake has some interesting studies on the topic, the Monroe Institute as well.

I used to be a skeptic, but I was convinced. I didn't want to be a "psychic". It was constantly socially stigmatised, even in these kinds of communities. I don't feel special for these things happening to me, anymore than anything else happens to me. I'm not "doing it" virtually at any point. It's not my doing.

What has been my feeling all along is that I had the materialist paradigm (with respect to the 'behavior' of reality; I explore this distinction here) as a starting position and then the evidence started piling up to the contrary and I gave all the rationalizations that you did (selection bias, etc.). But after a while, I realized that the materialist assumption was just an assumption and that I had been playing favorites for it.

And when I opened my mind more to the alternative that the assumption was wrong, the evidence started becoming more salient, I started to not neglect it as bullshit a priori, I 'actually' opened my mind. And then the evidence just became such that accepting the alternative hypotheses were much more attractive to me, because the evidence was starting to get overwhelming and the alternative was starting to feel like gaslighting and defending epicycles.

My hunch is that the lengths you go to defend the materialist paradigm and shoot down the psychic paradigm, were you to apply it to some of your own materialist beliefs and judgements, would probably not hold up. There are probably way more spicy beliefs you entertain daily, way more tentative causal attributions, that you give credence to than what I've been doing in my dream interpretations. That's my interpretation as a behavioral science graduate, where you start to learn that even materialist behavioral interactions which you think to be true, are often highly tentative and likely spurious, but you still entertain them as true.

Edited 23 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Jirh

For these kinds of experiences

They're not anything near what I would call "experiences". That's already a huge leap of faith. What they really are is beliefs and misinterpretations that remind me of conspiracy theories.

You have to establish the validity of the logic that connects experience A with event B before making hypotheses about the nature of connection. And you have no solid argument for why experience A is related to event B, except for: "what are the odds?! 😅". The answer is simply that the odds are low, but still statistically existent.

Quote

I used to be a skeptic, but I was convinced. I didn't want to be a "psychic". It was constantly socially stigmatised, even in these kinds of communities. I don't feel special for these things happening to me, anymore than anything else happens to me. I'm not "doing it" virtually at any point. It's not my doing.

So you're just like that, huh? Pure and egoless, like an innocent newborn seeing the world with clear eyes, right?

Quote

What has been my feeling all along is that I had the materialist paradigm (with respect to the 'behavior' of reality; I explore this distinction here) as a starting position and then the evidence started piling up to the contrary and I gave all the rationalizations that you did (selection bias, etc.). But after a while, I realized that the materialist assumption was just an assumption and that I had been playing favorites for it.

I could swear it's almost never about the truth, but about ego. If psychic abilities were normal everyday life, you would likely not have any interest in them. Notice how here I am pointing to the magic of technology, and you never even acknowledged it. You jokingly wrote me off as a nerd. I say you'd likely treat psychic abilities at that point as you treat causality, as an illusion that cannot be proven.

It's not about which paradigm is fundamentally true. No paradigm is fundamentally true. It's about what actually works.

Quote

And when I opened my mind more to the alternative that the assumption was wrong, the evidence started becoming more salient, I started to not neglect it as bullshit a priori, I 'actually' opened my mind. And then the evidence just became such that accepting the alternative hypotheses were much more attractive to me, because the evidence was starting to get overwhelming and the alternative was starting to feel like gaslighting and defending epicycles.

You still didn't provide any arguments for the connection between experience A and event B.

Quote

My hunch is that the lengths you go to defend the materialist paradigm and shoot down the psychic paradigm, were you to apply it to some of your own materialist beliefs and judgements, would probably not hold up. There are probably way more spicy beliefs you entertain daily, way more tentative causal attributions, that you give credence to than what I've been doing in my dream interpretations. That's my interpretation as a behavioral science graduate, where you start to learn that even materialist behavioral interactions which you think to be true, are often highly tentative and likely spurious, but you still entertain them as true.

Give an example.

Edited 19 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

6 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Carl-Richard @Sugarcoat @Natasha Tori Maru

Alright, guys. I'll preface this by saying that I'd been on the opposite side for almost a decade. Specifically, I used to believe in telepathy, never experienced the belief in precognition, and near the end was almost convinced I'd achieved clairvoyance. My current position is that these are all false beliefs based on faulty logic.

One point that comes to mind is the fallacy of base rate neglect and selection bias, where the data is filtered to fit a desired narrative. You believe in precognition, so you stay alert for it. You watch every thought that passes your mind, while awake or in your dreams. Then when something remotely close happens, your reaction is: "Ha! I knew it!", even though it usually includes multiple patches and leaps of faith to draw together the loose ends. But in doing so, you ignore the fact that you think probably hundreds if not even thousands of different thoughts per day. But you conveniently select the ones that fit your narrative, even if loosely. And then you assume a special connection between that thought and the event that happened. You feel special. Like you are the data center of the universe. The rarity of such coincidences makes them feel even more special. It's part curiosity and part arrogance. You don't just want it to be true, you also want it to be yours. You want to be the one with psychic abilities.

There's also the law of truly large numbers, which states that with a large enough sample size, even highly improbable events become almost certain to occur. Coincidences or "outrages" are therefore statistically expected rather than extraordinary. If you blindfoldedly throw a basketball enough times, you will score eventually.

Lastly, there's the reduction of magic into mundaneness. Life is fundamentally magical. There's infinitely more magic in technology and how we are able to communicate now than there is magic in simple direct telepathy. But because we take everything we have in abundance for granted, the grass looks greener on the other side. If you take a look at what's necessary and what happens for a simple web page to load, you'd be astounded by the magic, your jaws would drop.

So ultimately what are you saying here?

[Jirh]

8 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

So ultimately what are you saying here?

Psychic abilities are not what you think.

The materialist paradigm has a better chance at proving psychic phenomenon than any other paradigm. It's just not what you think, and most people won't like it, especially those spiritually-minded.

Telepathy is achieved by communication technologies; the entire infrastructure.

Precognition and clairvoyance are achieved through gathering and analysis of tremendous amounts of data, for example weather casts.

That's all magic. And if you can't see it, it's your failure.

Edited 19 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Psychic abilities are not what you think.

The materialist paradigm has a better chance at proving psychic phenomenon than any other paradigm. It's just not what you think, and most people won't like it, especially those spiritually-minded.

Telepathy is achieved by communication technologies; the entire infrastructure.

Precognition and clairvoyance are achieved through gathering and analysis of tremendous amounts data, for example weather casts.

Well..that simply isn't true IF reality isn't materialism.  Meaning its not atoms.  Its not science.  But its magic.  That would make telepathy, the paranormal, and the whole nine yards possible simply by default- whether you personally could access such abilities or not.  It would bring it into the realm of possibility.  So all you are doing is dividing up possibility based on paradigm.

Edited 18 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jirh]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well..that simply isn't true IF reality isn't materialism.  Meaning its not atoms.  Its not science.  But its magic.  That would make telepathy, the paranormal, and the whole nine yards possible simply by default- whether you personally could access such skills or not.  It would bring it into the realm of possibility.  So all you are doing is dividing up possibility based on paradigm.

The paranormal is not only possible. It's happening right here in front of you. You are using it right now to interact with minds without time or space limitations.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Jirh said:

The paranormal is not only possible. It's happening right here in front of you. You are using it right now to interact with minds without time or space limitations.

Right- but its not really happening over a wire with electrons passing through.   Have you experienced such electrons directly?  Yes - it occurs behind the mask of science, or under a scientific guise, but that's what makes it all the more magical. 

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jirh]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Right- but its not really happening over a wire with electrons passing through.   Have you experienced such electrons directly?  Yes - it occurs behind the mask of science, or under a scientific guise, but that's what makes it all the more magical. 

Exactly 💯

I don't take electrons literally. I think they're a great scientific metaphor.

Edited 18 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Exactly 💯

I don't take electrons literally. I think they're a great scientific metaphor.

Its fucking genius. 

[Jirh]

@Inliytened1 💯