My dreams are about future real life events?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

How do you know your thoughts are your own?

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Jirh said:

@Inliytened1 💯

 But now see why everyone asks Leo to manifest a million dollars in his bank account if he is God?  God has a very indirect process.  If it were direct it would give up the surprise.

[Jirh]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How do you know your thoughts are your own?

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.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How do you know your thoughts are your own?

You tell us?

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

15 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Thoughts don't have to be anyone's to be experienced.

 

[Natasha Tori Maru]

51 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

You tell us?

That is the thorn in my side - how the fuck *DO* I know? Ownership of a thought - well - that's a layer on top of observing a thought

Is there any reason to not believe I might be sharing a single thought with another? There is no empirical evidence to suggest a thought could be shared between minds/brains. If consciousness is supposed to be one single field expressing itself through many perspectives, then the distinction between "my thought" and "your thought" becomes much less obvious....

Am I creating a separation?

This opens up a million more questions about synchronicity, simultaneity, causal connection (does causation exist, or is it inferred?). If there is no time, time does not exist - are there then even two thoughts, if they are simultaneous or synchronised? Or does the connection between the two dissolve the two thoughts, and it is really just one? Just, connection?

If separation is an illusion - why do we apply it to thoughts? Is this leading to telepathy being possible?

Edited 17 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Natasha Tori Maru]

It's not really about thoughts and telepathy.

It is about whether the sense of being a separate owner of thoughts is something directly found, or something the mind infers after the fact.

[Inliytened1]

51 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

 

If separation is an illusion - why do we apply it to thoughts? Is this leading to telepathy being possible?

A better question might be if science is an illusion could telepathy be possible. And I say sure.  Why wouldn' it be possible.  So let's go a step further. If everything is mind than maybe, right? We'll what if it was one mind appearing as multiple? Then surely right? Then why can't we do it. Can you? Let's go back to @Jirh  maybe we are through the guise of science.  But can we do it outside of that? What would that take. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

5 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

For the three original dreams, what struck me about them was:

1. They mirrored the exact type of content (2/3) or the themes were closely related (1/3). Being chased by tornadoes was exactly what happened for people involved, PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of the house was actually what happened, and being chased by a ghost by presumably somebody who just died (and which I've met in real life and have worked with painting and restoring a house one summer and he got frustrated at me at times), those seemed to mirror the real life events very closely.

2. I've never had those exact types of dreams before as far as I could remember (3/3). Being chased by tornadoes was definitely a first, I can't remember being chased by a ghost (only a weird character from the Moomies which is not really a ghost but looks like it), and witnessing PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of his house was definitely a first (I can't remember dreaming about somebody being kicked out of their house).

3. They happened seemingly temporally parallel to the real events (3/3). The death of the person and the tornado event was confirmed to be parallel as far as being asleep at the same time; the PsychedSubstance event was not confirmed in the same way but occurred in a way that could line up with the actual event.

4. They were the most significant event of that kind for a long time or simply highly signficant events. The tornado event was the most devastating tornado event for that area in 100 years. My dad's boss dying was a highly publicized event in our country as he was a leading environmentalist; newspapers wrote about it all over. PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of his house (which was also a breakup) was highly significant for him and his life (and the subscribers who received the news), it ended a long-term relationship involving kids.

5. The dreams occurred as nightmares (3/3), and for all those cases, I could not remember the last time I had a nightmare before that (i.e. they're very rare). They were nightmares in the sense that I woke up at the peak intensity (due to the intensity). That I get a nightmare is itself already very rare, and that I get these highly weird above things happening in conjunction, that makes you think things.

All in all, the type of content mirroring the real-life events somehow, the type of content being a first, the dreams happening seemingly temporally parallel to the real events, and the events being significant in the real world, and the dreams being nightmares.

The skepticism will of course be "how much does it have to mirror it for it be 'proof'?", or "how significant is significant?". Well, these things are not as much "proofs" as interesting considerations. If you want "proofs", go down the ("pseudo"-)scientific research rabbithole (but they're in reality not really proofs either; all scientific investigations are probabilistic). Very rarely can you say to have proved something in life. Most often it's about what you find convincing or reasonable.

 

5 hours ago, Jirh said:

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

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.

I acknowledge many things which are not "normal", like enlightenment being a real phenomena. Is that ego? Or is it based on seeing things, experiencing things, learning about things, drawing conclusions, which are reasonable and likely true? Does something need to be normal for you to think that me acknowledging it is not "ego"?

 

5 hours ago, Jirh said:

Give an example.

You go down to your garage and find your car is gone. You see a broken door handle and not much else. The garage door is open. The door handle belongs to the second door to the garage. "Ah somebody must have broken in and stolen it".

You might be right, but that's a probability calculation, an inference based on limited evidence. For all you know, your car could have malfunctioned (it's electric) and it started backing out of your garage, forced open the garage door, teared down something which smashed the door handle and then the car rolled downhill and disappeared out of sight.

That's an outrageous example but you make these calculations all the time and sometimes you're dead wrong. "She lied because this happened and this happened", but turns out you were missing crucial information and it looks now much less likely that she lied and you were just mistaken about your level of conviction.

Most things we entertain are probabilistic, but we entertain them sometimes as logical necessities, when in fact they're simply seeming consistencies, and when something changes in the situation, often very subtle or minor or unacknowledged, that alleged logical necessity breaks down.

What standard of evidence do we use to explain our conviction? It essentially always changes depending on the situation. How many criteria do you have to add before you feel convinced, before you can draw a connection that seems to make other competing alternatives seem less likely? Depends on the situation. Psychic or not, this is a calculation we do. Me listing five "criteria" like that is not "proof", but it explains my level of conviction.

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

@Jirh

Imagine if I had dreamt you drove a car and then you found out you got a scratch on the paint and this was highly concerning to you, at the exact same time as this actually happened to you in real life. Imagine if I had never dreamt about somebody getting a scratch on their car before, and that when I dreamt it, I woke up when it got the most intense. What would you think if I told you that?

• Content - analogous/match.
• Content being a previous experience in the dream state (being more likely to come from my mind) - not the case.
• Time of occurrence - match.
• Emotional significance (you were highly concerned; I dreamt that you were highly concerned; I woke up as it was a nightmare) - analogous/match.

These criteria start to resemble how you judge "normal" physical perceptual phenomena to be real. If you can confirm it through multiple sensory channels (the phenomena resemble each other and mirror each other temporally and behaviorally e.g. through sight and touch), you start to entertain them as real. For example, an increase in luminosity of an object corresponding to an increase in felt heat, you become more convinced that the object did indeed change state and it wasn't something you simply were imagining.

So perhaps if I experience it through a dream at the same time as you experience it in real-life, from the perspective of God, us two being its two different sensory organs, God would conclude that its experience of reality is now more real than if only one of us had experienced it (given the human perceptual 'logic') 😆

We can also start to tease out an analogy for causality. Causality is inferred when you have two events ("cause" and "effect") that follow each other in time and the cause seems necessarily to imply the effect (or there is some mechanism or property that explains the relationship). Instead of the cause preceding the effect in time, we have the "cause" and "effect" being mirrored in time (parallel). Similarly, instead of a mechanism explaining a connection or relationship, the experiences are mirror images (they have the same content). So while we cannot think of causality in a more classical mechanistic sense, we can think of an analogous way of lending credence to the reality of the phenomena: A doesn't precede and explain B. A co-arises with and mirrors B.

Edited 13 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

4 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

How do you know your thoughts are your own?

This is a key question for contemplation IMO.  

[Jirh]

8 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

If everything is mind than maybe, right?

Mind is a metaphor. Just like atoms.

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Mind is a metaphor. Just like atoms.

Its it either made of atoms or it isnt.  One must be Absolute. 

[Jirh]

@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.

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@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.

That is Mind. 

[Jirh]

@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.

[Jirh]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Jirh

Imagine if I had dreamt you drove a car and then you found out you got a scratch on the paint and this was highly concerning to you, at the exact same time as this actually happened to you in real life. Imagine if I had never dreamt about somebody getting a scratch on their car before, and that when I dreamt it, I woke up when it got the most intense. What would you think if I told you that?

• Content - analogous/match.
• Content being a previous experience in the dream state (being more likely to come from my mind) - not the case.
• Time of occurrence - match.
• Emotional significance (you were highly concerned; I dreamt that you were highly concerned; I woke up as it was a nightmare) - analogous/match.

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.

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

These criteria start to resemble how you judge "normal" physical perceptual phenomena to be real. If you can confirm it through multiple sensory channels (the phenomena resemble each other and mirror each other temporally and behaviorally e.g. through sight and touch), you start to entertain them as real. For example, an increase in luminosity of an object corresponding to an increase in felt heat, you become more convinced that the object did indeed change state and it wasn't something you simply were imagining.

So perhaps if I experience it through a dream at the same time as you experience it in real-life, from the perspective of God, us two being its two different sensory organs, God would conclude that its experience of reality is now more real than if only one of us had experienced it (given the human perceptual 'logic') 😆

You can't compare normal perception to tales of paranormal. The consistency in perception is nowhere near the inconsistency in those tales.

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

We can also start to tease out an analogy for causality. Causality is inferred when you have two events ("cause" and "effect") that follow each other in time and the cause seems necessarily to imply the effect (or there is some mechanism or property that explains the relationship). Instead of the cause preceding the effect in time, we have the "cause" and "effect" being mirrored in time (parallel). Similarly, instead of a mechanism explaining a connection or relationship, the experiences are mirror images (they have the same content). So while we cannot think of causality in a more classical mechanistic sense, we can think of an analogous way of lending credence to the reality of the phenomena: A doesn't precede and explain B. A co-arises with and mirrors B.

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).

[Jirh]

38 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That is Mind. 

Mind is a map.

The map is not the territory.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Mind is a map.

The map is not the territory.

But you just gave a map when you said it was infinite and groundless.  All we have here are maps.  But if I gave you two maps.  One that led to water and one that led to the desert where you would die of thirst - which map would you follow.  Either way- you have a map in your hand.

[Jirh]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

But you just gave a map when you said it was infinite and groundless.  All we have here are maps. 

True. It's a finger pointing to the moon.

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

But if I gave you two maps.  One that led to water and one that led to the desert where you would die of thirst - which map would you follow.  Either way- you have a map in your hand.

How would I know which map is trustworthy and leads to water anyway?

I have to verify for myself.