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 19 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 16 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 8 hours 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.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

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?

Weird break in the chronology of the responses, and I'm not sure how that answers the question, but ok.

When I feel like it. When I feel that I'm convinced, when I feel that it's the best explanation. Same as when I'm convinced somebody is lying or somebody stole my car. It depends a lot on the situation and it's not 100% knowledge. I'm not 100% certain. But there is a difference between feeling convinced and not, and I'm generally convinced psychic phenomena are real; I'm convinced they're the best explanation for many things.

Explanations that jump to unfalsifiable cognitive science heuristics while clammering onto localistic assumptions like one's life depends on it, just to exclude all and any possibility of psychic phenomena, are not very convincing for me. The thing is I'm fine with using localistic explanations too, but not when they seem unreasonable. When you adopt the absolutist perspective, you tend to run into problems.

 

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

And you would have no idea that it happened miles away from you without technology. You forgot the elephant in the room.

I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you're schizophrenic.

 

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

You can't necessarily reproduce somebody stealing your car but you will still default to what you think is the best explanation. Because again, we use other means of judging reality than "causality" or controlled experimentation.

 

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

It's not just unlikely, like guessing the exact result of the World Cup final the day before or flipping heads 11 times in a row or something. It's something else. How many times has PsychedSubstance been kicked out of his own house? Perhaps it's never happened before in the history of the universe? So how unlikely is it to dream about something concrete like that at the same time as it is happening in real life when that thing has never happened before in the history of the universe? Impossibly unlikely.

 

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

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.

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.

I'd like to hear why you think it's pre-rational and not post-rational, not just you asserting it. Interesting that your mind went to "post-rational" though. I'm not "psychic" but I know a thing or two about cognitive heuristics.

"Common sense" does not qualify as an argument in a discussion about epistemology/philosophy.

Why is causality important but not convergence of different sensory streams?

 

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

You're smart enough to know why.

That's the core of your faulty reasoning.

Smart enough to not default to "common sense" (whatever that is) in a discussion about philosophy.

Not defaulting to "common sense" in a discussion about philosophy, definitely "faulty reasoning". Expecting someone else to default to it, definitely "not" faulty reasoning.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Overall I find the certainty telepathy CANNOT exist or be possible as concerning as the idea of it being a possibility.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Overall I find the certainty telepathy CANNOT exist or be possible as concerning as the idea of it being a possibility.

Anything exists if you want it to.  But I do believe it exists. What would prevent it from being real? Only you.  That said, reading people's minds can get a bit tricky.  Healing is the same way.  And morphing into alien intelligence.  All comes at a price  

[Carl-Richard]

Imagine I'm looking out from a window and I say I can see a balloon. Another guy looking out their own window say they can also see a balloon, in the same place, at the same time. Now, when the second person says they also see the balloon, we think that adds credence to the fact that the balloon I'm seeing is real (i.e. I'm not just hallucinating it).

Meanwhile, when I dream about them seeing the balloon in the same place at the same time, I'm supposedly just dreaming something random and it's just a coincidence. I'm supposedly not accessing the actual reality. The fact that the person also saw the balloon in real life does not somehow add credence to the fact that the balloon I saw in the dream could be real. Because, I guess "sensory organs"? Ok.

[Jirh]

39 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Weird break in the chronology of the responses, and I'm not sure how that answers the question, but ok.

You asked: Why is "that doesn't happen usually" relevant?

It's relevant because it's not what most people who claim paranormal give. They don't usually give a point by point resembling story. It's often a loosely resembling one with multiple patches to make it sound more like it. And even those are rare enough to dismiss.

The even more rarer examples that are more resembling are enough to consider a coincidence, nothing more.

Quote

When I feel like it. When I feel that I'm convinced, when I feel that it's the best explanation. Same as when I'm convinced somebody is lying or somebody stole my car. It depends a lot on the situation and it's not 100% knowledge. I'm not 100% certain. But there is a difference between feeling convinced and not, and I'm generally convinced psychic phenomena are real; I'm convinced they're the best explanation for many things.

That's how I would think if there was no alternative way of thinking like rationality. That's why it's pre-rational.

Quote

Explanations that jump to unfalsifiable cognitive science heuristics while clammering onto localistic assumptions like one's life depends on it, just to exclude all and any possibility of psychic phenomena, are not very convincing for me. The thing is I'm fine with using localistic explanations too, but not when they seem unreasonable. When you adopt the absolutist perspective, you tend to run into problems.

Okay, let's say there's psychic phenomenon. The thing is: we cannot control it or reproduce it. And more importantly, we cannot even tell whether it is occurring or not when it's occuring. We don't know when a dream or a thought is a psychic telling and when they aren't.

And no amount of intuition or personal feelings or desperation for an answer can fix this problem.

Quote

I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you're schizophrenic.

I'm flattered 😂

The relevance is in the example I gave right afterwards.

Without the technology that made it possible for you know about a tornado happening miles away from you, you couldn't possibly have made that leap of faith that it was a precognitive dream.

You based a big part of your reasoning on the knowledge that your dream actually happened in reality. But you could have easily missed that particular news. 500 years ago, you wouldn't even have the slightest idea that it happened at all.

Unless you're suggesting that every thought we have and every dream we experience resemble some actual life event, which is totally nuts, and I don't think you are.

Quote

You can't necessarily reproduce somebody stealing your car but you will still default to what you think is the best explanation. Because again, we use other means of judging reality than "causality" or controlled experimentation.

I can reproduce the reasoning to anyone, and they will most likely agree with me, even you will likely agree. That's rationality.

Quote

It's not just unlikely, like guessing the exact result of the World Cup final the day before or flipping heads 11 times in a row or something. It's something else. How many times has PsychedSubstance been kicked out of his own house? Perhaps it's never happened before in the history of the universe? So how unlikely is it to dream about something concrete like that at the same time as it is happening in real life when that thing has never happened before in the history of the universe? Impossibly unlikely.

Nothing is impossibly unlikely according to the law of truly large numbers. It's not likely, but it can happen. We call that a coincidence.

Quote

I'd like to hear why you think it's pre-rational and not post-rational, not just you asserting it. Interesting that your mind went to "post-rational" though. I'm not "psychic" but I know a thing or two about cognitive heuristics.

It's pre-rational because it existed before rationality because rationality was not established yet. People had to cling to myths and magical thinking to explain life. That's not enlightenment. That's just lack of proper mental capacity.

Edited 5 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine I'm looking out from a window and I say I can see a balloon. Another guy looking out their own window say they can also see a balloon, in the same place, at the same time. Now, when the second person says they also see the balloon, we think that adds credence to the fact that the balloon I'm seeing is real (i.e. I'm not just hallucinating it).

Meanwhile, when I dream about them seeing the balloon in the same place at the same time, I'm supposedly just dreaming something random and it's just a coincidence. I'm supposedly not accessing the actual reality. The fact that the person also saw the balloon in real life does not somehow add credence to the fact that the balloon I saw in the dream could be real. Because, I guess "sensory organs"? Ok.

All of this assumes a balloon floating out there in empty space for all of you to look at.  What i suggest to you is that this a complete and total illusion.

Edited 5 hours ago by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

All of this assumes a balloon floating out there in empty space for all of you to look at.  What i suggest to you is that this a complete and total illusion.

Ok mr illusionist, but if we grant that we can call the balloon probably "more" real based on independent observers converging, then we can apply this to dreams as well. Again, it's not to say it "proves" it's real, but it adds credence.

Edited 5 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

Just now, Carl-Richard said:

Ok mr illusionist, but if we grant that we can call the balloon "more" real based on independent observers converging, then we can apply this to dreams as well. Again, it's not to say it "proves" it's real, but it adds credence.

Absolutely.  That's precisely how everything works. By adding credence.  You see how you just did that? You solidified the illusion a bit more.  Its tighter than a virgin pussy.

[gettoefl]

58 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Anything exists if you want it to.  But I do believe it exists. What would prevent it from being real? Only you.  That said, reading people's minds can get a bit tricky.  Healing is the same way.  And morphing into alien intelligence.  All comes at a price  

These all are real since there is one mind. Yet they can easily become distractions in making one seem special. That can keep one shackled in illusion. Illusion isn't life's purpose. Might be okay as a post-awakening play-thing especially if it might help someone else. A nice to have not have to have.

[Inliytened1]

3 minutes ago, gettoefl said:

These all are real since there is one mind. Yet they can easily become distractions in making one seem special. That can keep one shackled in illusion. Illusion isn't life's purpose. Might be okay as a post-awakening play-thing especially if it might help someone else. A nice to have not have to have.

Exactly. They are real.  What does that mean.   Well, I guess it means it is possible. But what isn't.  It doesn't mean it is going to happen tomorrow. 

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

You asked: Why is "that doesn't happen usually" relevant?

It's relevant because it's not what most people who claim paranormal give. They don't usually give a point by point resembling story. It's often a loosely resembling one with multiple patches to make it sound more like it. And even those are rare enough to dismiss.

The even more rarer examples that are more resembling are enough to consider a coincidence, nothing more.

Why are you talking about other people? I'm talking about my ideas about psychic phenomena.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

That's how I would think if there was no alternative way of thinking like rationality. That's why it's pre-rational.

Well, you're not really engaging with the points about why it can be rational (multiple converging sensory streams). You're invoking "common sense" and calling me "too smart to not know". Could call that pre-rational as well.

Why are multiple converging sensory streams not a valid epistemic tool for you (or are they)? It's in fact also common sense that it is.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

Okay, let's say there's psychic phenomenon. The thing is: we cannot control it or reproduce it. And more importantly, we cannot even tell whether it is occurring or not when it's occuring. We don't know when a dream or a thought is a psychic telling and when they aren't.

And no amount of intuition or personal feelings or desperation for an answer can fix this problem.

Except in studies like those done by Rupert Sheldrake and others.

Still, again, you default to the best explanation without using controlled experiments all the time.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

The relevance is in the example I gave right afterwards.

Without the technology that made it possible for you know about a tornado happening miles away from you, you couldn't possibly have made that leap of faith that it was a precognitive dream.

You based a big part of your reasoning on the knowledge that your dream actually happened in reality. But you could have easily missed that particular news. 500 years ago, you wouldn't even have the slightest idea that it happened at all.

Unless you're suggesting that every thought we have and every dream we experience resemble some actual life event, which is totally nuts, and I don't think you are.

Yep, that's another thing to factor into the calculation. But people also believed in psychic phenomena 500 years ago. And for that, you will go to some other point which we will also have to factor into the calculation. But again, we're still just factoring things into the calculation. We're sharpening the level of credence we're giving to each hypothesis.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

I can reproduce the reasoning to anyone, and they will most likely agree with me, even you will likely agree.

Red herring / equivocating on "reproduce"? But ok.

Yes, because most people agree that this is a good explanation. It's harder when you have to challenge their metaphysical assumptions and they start pulling up unfalsifiable auxiliary hypotheses like law of big numbers, selection bias, etc. (which again, can also be used to "doubt" your car explanation).

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

Nothing is impossibly unlikely according to the law of truly large numbers. It's not likely, but it can happen. We call that a coincidence.

And that's why it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it can be used by sophists to defend the biggest of turds (the law of the truly big turds). You can defend your turds with unfalsfiable hypotheses or you can start to measure one turd up against another, through ideas like converging sensory streams. Perhaps start exploring that discussion tree rather than repeating the unfalsifiable one.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

It's pre-rational because it existed before rationality because rationality was not established yet. People had to cling to myths and magical thinking to explain life. That's not enlightenment. That's just lack of proper mental capacity.

Using post-Popperian philosophy (and cognitive science) to defend one's view, is that pre-rational? What did Popper call himself? 🤔

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard