My dreams are about future real life events?

[Jirh]

5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

That last part I highlighted in your response basically implies the assumption that obvious psychic phenomena don’t occur, or at least not to us here that you’re responding to. As if they all are these “ambiguous” ones that need analysis and attempts at “putting the pieces together”. 

It's not about ambiguity. It's about leaps of faith.

Literally nothing of true significance happens, and some people call it psychic phenomenon.

Someone telling a story about some dream they had is not a psychic telling. It's just a highly patched up coincidence. Often, there's a lot of mental legwork that goes into it than appears.

Like I said to Carl from the beginning, you need to first establish that the connection you're proposing is real or of significance before you can make attempts at explaining the connection.

My claim is that the connection doesn't exist at all. You're imagining it.

5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Psychic phenomena have to do with your mind, or what I like to call “inner landscape” (encompasses more than just mind in conventional sense).

If you experience them, it’s something about the state of your mind that allowed for it, and that state is one from which you interact with the world. So your experience of technology too will be different because of this state. (Doesn’t have to be like that for everyone, but talking from this perspective now)

I don’t use the word “psychic” in this strict conventional way as in distinct psychic experiences, textbook definition telepathy, clairvoyance etc. It encompasses more than that for me. It’s not so limited, the “psychic” quality can fuse into many types of experiences. It is precisely an increase in the sensitivity you talk about. 

You're referring to pre-rational psychic phenomenon; that magical phenomenon of unmediated mind connection. This idea is based on the assumption that the mind is non-local, or universal, or connected to other minds in some mysterious ways. That's all.. I don't know, weak, for lack of a better word. There is literally nothing to support those ideas except weak anecdotal reports that can be easily dismissed due to lack of coherence and consistency.

What I am suggesting instead, is that true psychic phenomenon actually exists in the things we see and use daily and take for granted like our phones and laptops. We are literally connecting with other minds without space and time limitations. Isn't that enough to consider telepathy/psychic? Just because it's mediated and has clear mechanisms doesn't make it any less magical, quite the opposite actually, the more I learn about and understand how technology works, the deeper my appreciation grows. It's absolutely astounding!

5 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

Yes what you said applies, I bet some people do that, and yes “lack of sensitivity” is massive fundamental problem for humanity, but even open minded ones like you underestimate how deep this “sensitivity” can go. 

I don't mean emotional sensitivity here in this context. I mean logical sensitivity. You need logical sensitivity to spot the magic. After the first actual seeing you will need emotional sensitivity to feel it more and more. Logic is the initial spark. Emotion is how deeply you understand the phenomenon; how intimate you are with it. Luckily, I have both when it comes to this topic.

It's absolutely obvious and evident for me that psychic phenomenon exists and that it is magic. It's just not what you guys think it is.

We can predict the weather now with much more accuracy than ever. No psychic across history could do what we can now. A 10-day forecast is only accurate about 50% of the time, but a 5-day forecast is accurate about 90% of the time. That's clearly precognition and clairvoyance in its most literal forms. Literally, ancient people used to have psychics predict the weather for them to set sail or not. We are now capable of doing the exact same job with much more accuracy, using well-known mechanisms.

It's not a secret anymore. The mechanisms are clear as day and not ambiguous at all. Anyone can access the method and even add to it if they can. It's all available for free. These are tremendously valuable features of science.

But we are fish swimming in the magic of science, it's hard to spot let alone feel the magic when it's everywhere around. And instead, we seek magic in the rare and unreliable things. We mistake rarity for value and abundance for lack thereof.

[Jirh]

6 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

You mean it would’ve been proven by science and showcased to the public? I am also shocked at how little it seems acknowledged, I don’t even know how common it is. 

If there was a psychic person with real psychic abilities, they would be the most famous person alive. Why? Because they would be able to showcase their powers on YouTube and IG and everywhere online.

We only need one person in order to prove pre-rational psychic abilities. But that one person doesn't exist.

Quote

You could say the same about spiritual awakening or could you not? Maybe you or someone would say something along the lines of “but that’s different because it’s about undoing the real” but that’s more so what full blown enlightenment entails (my guess), they are different. 

Spiritual awakening is a private inner experience/transformation. It's not a claim about external reality. It's a deep understanding of it.

Edited yesterday at 04:03 AM by Jirh

[Natasha Tori Maru]

What if one is an experiencer?

[Human Mint]

7 hours ago, Jirh said:

It's not about ambiguity. It's about leaps of faith.

Literally nothing of true significance happens, and some people call it psychic phenomenon.

Someone telling a story about some dream they had is not a psychic telling. It's just a highly patched up coincidence. Often, there's a lot of mental legwork that goes into it than appears.

Like I said to Carl from the beginning, you need to first establish that the connection you're proposing is real or of significance before you can make attempts at explaining the connection.

My claim is that the connection doesn't exist at all. You're imagining it.

Latest blog post fits good in this conversation.

Is not so simple, at all. You can connect more and more to the feeling of how paradoxical reality is. It is a connection that can be made. But not something everyone is eager to do.

You might be right at the end of the day even after going through all of that paradox and confusion, or you might be completely wrong. That's why I don't like jumping into conclusions right away.

[Jirh]

@Human Mint 😴

[Human Mint]

12 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Human Mint 😴

Well, that is my reaction reading you lol. Lame materialist.

Edited 20 hours ago by Human Mint

[Jirh]

@Human Mint 😭

[Human Mint]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Human Mint 😭

Seriously, I think you're negating that higher consciousness exitst and you're marrying a materialist perspective, like a bias.

I am not negating that you can like it.

[Jirh]

@Human Mint If you have anything to say about the topic, I'm happy to engage.

Otherwise, I think I said what needed to be said. So, let's end it here.

[Human Mint]

Just now, Jirh said:

@Human Mint If you have anything to say about the topic, I'm happy to engage.

Otherwise, I think I said what needed to be said. So, let's end it here.

Yes, my stance is what if it isn't a coincidence but a function of higher conscioussness? The dreams about future events that is.

Detached from the answer, just whatever the truth is.

[Jirh]

50 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Yes, my stance is what if it isn't a coincidence but a function of higher conscioussness? The dreams about future events that is.

I'll give you that it might be a function of lower consciousness, because it's pre-rational. Who knows?! Maybe early humans had nothing else to hang on to except these subtle weak signals.

Still, why bother even thinking about that when the better alternative is present?

The biggest problem still remains that you can never know when something is a psychic signal and when it isn't. There's no way to verify anything.

Humanity had held the belief in such things across many different cultures and traditions for thousands of years. You'd think at this point we would have developed some tangible mechanism to differentiate a true seeing from the regular meaningless ones, even if that mechanism is not perfectly accurate. But to my knowledge, there's literally nothing except delusion.

Some animals seem to use similar ways of thinking to navigate reality because they don't have better alternatives. It's just the limits of their minds.

Ultimately, rationality and science align with higher consciousness more than magical thinking. Not that magical thinking is always wrong or that rationality and science are always right, but that one side is clearly superior to the other, and by a large margin. One side offers clarity, the other offers delusions. Big difference.

If psychic signals were from higher consciousness, then God clearly doesn't care about us. Why? Because they're rare, clouded with ambiguity, unreliable, inconsistent, confusing, even cruel sometimes. Why would I have to experience a tornado to know that it's going to happen?! No, thanks. I'd rather remain clueless if you're not asking for my permission and if it's going to happen anyway.

(The last one is for you @Carl-Richard)

Edited 18 hours ago by Jirh

[Human Mint]

46 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Ultimately, rationality and science align with higher consciousness more than magical thinking. Not that magical thinking is always wrong or that rationality and science are always right, but that one side is clearly superior to the other, and by a large margin. One side offers clarity, the other offers delusions. Big difference.

I agree that they align more, and I am not talking about pre-rational. But here we are running into the same problem of dismissing higher conscioussness as pre-rational (bare with me). My claim is that psychic ability, telepathy, etc first come as higher conscioussness. Meaning they're tangible things. The pre-rational aspects is just corruption of those abilities, misinterpretation and wishful thinking. That is the key aspect. So a corrupt mind would want psychic ability to be something that is not, (an ego that wants to twist words to fit its survival agenda).

It is like saying that the Bible is just wishful thinking. That was not the true purpose of the Bible. A pre-rational mind could not come up with half the things the Bible says. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Human Mint

[Human Mint]

57 minutes ago, Jirh said:

If psychic signals were from higher consciousness, then God clearly doesn't care about us. Why? Because they're rare, clouded with ambiguity, unreliable, inconsistent, confusing, even cruel sometimes. Why would I have to experience a tornado to know that it's going to happen?! No, thanks. I'd rather remain clueless if you're not asking for my permission and if it's going to happen anyway.

This is the kind of pre-rational thinking that you seem to look down on.

[Jirh]

38 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

My claim is that psychic ability, telepathy, etc first come as higher conscioussness. Meaning they're tangible things. The pre-rational aspects is just corruption of those abilities, misinterpretation and wishful thinking. That is the key aspect.

You still can't distinguish between true psychic signals and meaningless happenings. And no amount of claiming or thinking something is higher consciousness can fix this problem.

What if me telling you this right now is a psychic signal from higher consciousness that you're ignoring because it's too direct and too strong of a signal?

Or do you consider it lower consciousness?

Does it have to be a weak, indirect , subtle, rare signal to appear on the psychic radar?

Do you need to see it in a dream to believe it? Well, in this case, you're in luck, because life is a dream!

Quote

It is like saying that the Bible is just wishful thinking. That was not the true purpose of the Bible. A pre-rational mind could not come up with half the things the Bible says.

Let alone the myths and magical thinking. The Bible is full of logical fallacies and errors and inconsistencies.

At best, it was a failed attempt to get into rationality. It's precisely what a pre-rational mind that's trying to evolve would produce.

Edited 17 hours ago by Jirh

[Jirh]

29 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

So a corrupt mind would want psychic ability to be something that is not, (an ego that wants to twist words to fit its survival agenda).

No.

I am not talking about ego corruption here. I'm addressing the raw phenomenon.

Edited 18 hours ago by Jirh

[Human Mint]

29 minutes ago, Jirh said:

What if me telling you this right now is a psychic signal from higher consciousness that you're ignoring because it's too direct and too strong of a signal?

Or do you consider it lower consciousness?

No, I am open to it. 

33 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Let alone the myths and magical thinking. The Bible is full of logical fallacies and errors and inconsistencies.

I am going to turn the tables here. What if those are direct signals from higher consciousness that you're ignoring?

What if they read as logical fallacies because of the particular worldview you're using?

[Jirh]

20 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

No, I am open to it. 

Then go verify it instead of arguing with me.

Quote

I am going to turn the tables here. What if those are direct signals from higher consciousness that you're ignoring?

What if they read as logical fallacies because of the particular worldview you're using?

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Jirh

[Human Mint]

25 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Then go verify it instead of arguing with me.

Why do you want me to go verify something and you don't want to do the same? What kind of conversation you want to have then?

25 minutes ago, Jirh said:

 

 

There wasn't any need to bring mr Trump into this, lol. We were doing good until then.

On a side note: chemistry wasn't possible without alchemy, which you would call "pre-rational".

[Jirh]

59 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Why do you want me to go verify something and you don't want to do the same? What kind of conversation you want to have then?

Because there is no way to verify psychic phenomenon. This is the crux of the problem. You can't even tell a psychic event from a regular event. No one can. What am I supposed to verify then? Every moment in history? Should I search all of history and give you each matching event to someone's dream? Then after that, I can apply the scientific method and use statistics to show the results? I am no AI, but even AI can't do that. Not even a quantum AI can do that.

However, what I am suggesting you should verify is accessible for anyone. Go study the scientific method. Study statistics. Study rationality. Study epistemology. Then if you don't find what I'm saying convincing, come back and argue some more.

Quote

On a side note: chemistry wasn't possible without alchemy, which you would call "pre-rational".

Alchemy is not pseudoscience. It's protoscience; a preliminary form of science. It used valid methods as a foundation, even if primal at that time, but they were fundamentally correct.

What are the methods of psychic signal collection? Nothing. Literally.

There are no methods except sit there and wait. Maybe something will happen. Maybe not. It's up to luck.

Or better yet, go to sleep. Maybe you'll see saint Mary or Jesus. But wait, what if they told you to wake up and stop believing in psychic phenomenon? How would you handle that error?

Edited 15 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

On 21.7.2026 at 9:59 AM, Jirh said:

Common sense and rationality are requirements for any serious discussion. Philosophical or otherwise. Because the only way to get to post-rationality is through rationality, not without it.

Rationality is not an obstacle towards post-rationality. The lack of it is. Post-rationality is just rationality taken to its logical conclusion, which is self-destruction.

Refusing to accept common sense will produce pre/trans effects.

You don't use common sense in a philosophical discussion (which is what I responded to, and now you added "rationality" for some reason as if I was responding to that), you use rationality. Nevertheless, instead of lecturing me on common sense and rationality, engage with the point where I claim to be rational (converging sensory streams). That's the crux of the issue. You did this later in your responses and I will address that.

 

On 21.7.2026 at 1:21 PM, Jirh said:

Consistency is the keyword here. Credibility is created through consistency.

The matching dream is a rare, one-off occurrence in a lifetime, if at all. While other waking people's reports are consistent every single time. That's why your dream is not credible and other waking people's perceptions are.

If you could find a way to extend the matching dreams beyond rare singular occurrences, then maybe you'd have a chance at gathering consensus.

The reason I started entertaining them as real was because I had three of them in quick succession and they all matched the five criteria closely. I started to see some consistency to the phenomena.

As for comparing it to "material phenomena", you could imagine someone seeing a helicopter once in a remote village, and if two or more people agreed on it happening in the same place at the same time, the fact that they both saw it adds credence to the reality of the phenomena when they tell it to the rest of the village. Then another time, they both saw a plane, and another time, they saw a drone. And by that point, seeing three cases of such machinery, they would perhaps start to conclude that somebody has built an airbase close to their village.

So the reality of a certain phenomena was inferred based on three occurrences and involving convergence of sensory streams.

 

On 21.7.2026 at 1:46 PM, Jirh said:

What do you have of him that you think is credible enough to make a conclusion?

I read about him on Wikipedia. His work is mostly classified as pseudo-science.

Claims outside a prevailing paradigm routinely get called pseudoscience. That's nothing new, Kuhn has shown us that. Newton was called the equivalent of pseudoscience ("occult") for his "spooky action at a distance" notion of gravity; Galileo was dismissed as suggesting a "foolish and absurd" proposition with his heliocentrism challenging geocentrism.

The fact is most people who call psychic phenomena pseudoscience don't actually bother to read the actual studies because they think the pseudoscience label (which they just got from somebody else, through perhaps wikipedia) basically already invalidates it (it's a very culturally strong and stigmatising label). Rupert Sheldrake has an interesting study on telephone telepathy you can read.

 

On 21.7.2026 at 1:46 PM, Jirh said:

It's the biggest factor. Without technology, you wouldn't have possibly known that the tornado occurred at all. All the other pieces of information are completely meaningless without that specific knowledge. Even if you believe in precognition, and even if everyone around you believes in your precognition, you will not possibly have any chance to prove your insight without technology. Of course, the point here is not to appreciate technology, but to dismantle the silly reasoning that ignores the elephant in the room.

That it's "the biggest" is a feeling you have, I don't think you have a number on that. Regardless, if it had happened to people I live in close proximity to and I only relied on say the local printed newspaper, would that change your mind or will you still default to law of big numbers?

I could've lived in a nearby village in Kentucky where tornadoes did not touch down and I could be safely asleep, dreamt about it at night, then read about it in the local newspaper. My dad's boss I could've actually read in a local printed newspaper (had I been visiting my hometown); I just happened to read it online.

"But global interactions make the statistics more likely". Yep. And many of the dreams that I interpret as likely psychic are also more local to my life.

 

On 21.7.2026 at 1:46 PM, Jirh said:

The law of truly large numbers is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's actually more in alignment with reality than your precious precognition.

The law of truly large numbers says that everything is possible with enough time and attempts. Things vary in likelihood of occurrence, but nothing is impossibly unlikely like you suggested. When unlikely things happen, the law doesn't panic, because it's already accounted for it. It just doesn't give it the meaning or importance that you want.

If a law says everything is possible, you can't use it to judge whether something is possible or not (whether psychic phenomena is possible or not). You can use it to account for everything and nothing and you have no standard for when it does not apply, so it's not possible to falsify when it applies or to falsify anything being possible with it.

So it's a cop-out mechanism if you use it as a way to "prove" psychic phenomena cannot be the case. You have not specified why exactly it makes psychic phenomena not be the case, over anything else. So it can only be used as a way to weigh a proposition (and in a very vague way, not something you can actually count), not decisively disprove it.

"Impossibly unlikely" is an informal way of saying "very very unlikely".

 

On 21.7.2026 at 1:46 PM, Jirh said:

🙄🤷‍♂️

"Pre-rational is when use rational argumentation as response but not when use condescending emoji and no concomitant explanation as response".