My dreams are about future real life events?

[Inliytened1]

25 minutes ago, Jirh said:

 

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

 

Intuition. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Jirh]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Intuition. 

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 🤝🏻

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Jirh said:

 

In all seriousness, I think following intuition is a continuous process of first-hand verification.🤝🏻

Don't get scientific on me 😞 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

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.

The problem is you have no standard for judging when it does. When you propose the reason for why your car is not in the garage or your sister allegedly lied to you, how does that escape the law of large numbers, base rate neglect, selection bias? If you have no standard for when your hypothesis is disproven or invalidated, you're just as bad off as the hypothesis you're supposedly invalidating. This is called an ad hoc rescue/hypothesization, and it's used regularly when paradigms like materialism are challenged: when your hypotheses seem less tenable, fall back on unfalsifiable auxiliary hypotheses.

[Jirh]

@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.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

Why is "that doesn't happen usually" relevant? And "loosely resembling" is interesting: I gave you an analogy for the dreams I've experienced. I literally experienced 1. being chased 2. by tornadoes (and 3. the tornadoes literally sucked me up at times, and 4. I felt like I was about to die); all of these things happened in real life. I literally experienced 1. PsychedSubstance, 2. being kicked out, 3. of his own house, and 4. he was distressed; all of these things happened in real life. In the analogy, you were 1. driving a car and 2. you got a scratch on the paint and 3. you were distressed. Did the analogy not feel convincing?

Imagine if I had been dreaming 1. you writing a math equation and 2. the math equation involved the circumference of a circle, and that actually happened in real life at the same time. What would you think then?

 

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

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

How so? What level of consistency is that? What level of consistency is satisfying for you?

 

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

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).

I explained exactly the difference between classical cause and effect and the analogous concept I was suggesting; I did not suggest they were the same. The point is that we use causality to give credence to the reality of something, but that is not the only thing we use to do that (like with multiple sense streams being coherent).

If I had instead said "I dreamt you writing something and I felt like that actually happened in real life" but we can't confirm it being temporally parallel and it's very generalized/vague ("writing something") and we can't confirm a match in emotional state, then of course there would be less credence, but the crucial point is exactly that: it's always just less or more. At what point it crosses the threshold of being believable or thoroughly convincing, that's up to you.

And of course, you weigh it up against things like law of large numbers, base rate neglect, but that's a calculation you do. These things just add or subtract credence to something.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Carl-Richard True, there's no clear differential point.

But it's also true that paranormal reasoning is way below the curve.

Why?

 

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

The difference is as clear as day. You don't need much more beyond common sense to see it.

Ah, appeal to "common sense", the ultimate auxiliary hypothesis.

[Jirh]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why is "that doesn't happen usually" relevant?

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?

Quote

And "loosely resembling" is interesting: I gave you an analogy for the dreams I've experienced. I literally experienced 1. being chased 2. by tornadoes (and 3. the tornadoes literally sucked me up at times, and 4. I felt like I was about to die); all of these things happened in real life.

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.

Quote

I literally experienced 1.PsychedSubstance, 2. being kicked out, 3. of his own house, and 4. he was distressed; all of these things happened in real life.

The video didn't work. I cannot discuss this.

Quote

In the analogy, you were 1. driving a car and 2. you got a scratch on the paint and 3. you were distressed. Did the analogy not feel convincing?

Imagine if I had been dreaming 1. you writing a math equation and 2. the math equation involved the circumference of a circle, and that actually happened in real life at the same time. What would you think then?

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.

Quote

How so? What level of consistency is that? What level of consistency is satisfying for you?

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.

Quote

I explained exactly the difference between classical cause and effect and the analogous concept I was suggesting; I did not suggest they were the same. The point is that we use causality to give credence to the reality of something, but that is not the only thing we use to do that (like with multiple sense streams being coherent).

If I had instead said "I dreamt you writing something and I felt like that actually happened in real life" but we can't confirm it being temporally parallel and it's very generalized/vague ("writing something") and we can't confirm a match in emotional state, then of course there would be less credence, but the crucial point is exactly that: it's always just less or more. At what point it crosses the threshold of being believable or thoroughly convincing, that's up to you.

And of course, you weigh it up against things like law of large numbers, base rate neglect, but that's a calculation you do. These things just add or subtract credence to something.

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.

Edited 1 hour ago by Jirh

[Jirh]

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why?

You're smart enough to know why.

10 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Ah, appeal to "common sense", the ultimate auxiliary hypothesis.

That's the core of your faulty reasoning.