My dreams are about future real life events?

[Human Mint]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

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.

You can't disprove it either. (post-rational psychic phenomenon).

You can't be on this forum and think that you're arguing against a human figure of God up in the skies. C'mon.

[Carl-Richard]

Consider how few things you need before you consider entertaining something as real (the car scenario, the sister lying scenario, the helicopter scenario) despite the statistical irreducibility of the universe. Then compare that with my five criteria. We're always just providing a few cents of epistemic currency in our everyday life yet we entertain it as real. So it's not surprising that when we have to push back against a multiple-century old culture that suppresses dissent through all possible shady means, it comes off as less convincing. But you just have to remind yourself of your actual epistemic standards that you use yourself in everyday life to see through that. Remind yourself of your "common sense".

[Natasha Tori Maru]

50 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Consider how few things you need before you consider entertaining something as real (the car scenario, the sister lying scenario, the helicopter scenario) despite the statistical irreducibility of the universe. Then compare that with my five criteria. We're always just providing a few cents of epistemic currency in our everyday life yet we entertain it as real. So it's not surprising that when we have to push back against a multiple-century old culture that suppresses dissent through all possible shady means, it comes off as less convincing. But you just have to remind yourself of your actual epistemic standards that you use yourself in everyday life to see through that. Remind yourself of your "common sense".

💫❤️‍🔥

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

You don't use common sense in a philosophical discussion, you use rationality.

Rationality and common sense are loosely synonymous in modern era. But alright, I will be more literal around you.

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

In most cultures, you need at least two witnesses to call something a fact, it's a known rule in many judicial systems.

But you're just one person. It's always just one person. The other person who actually experienced the thing first-hand is the reference point, so you can't include them.

It's literally impossible to tell apart a psychic signal from random noise. The distinction and meaning are always asserted after the fact.

But let's be generous and ignore that for a moment, it's still way less likely to assert that two persons have experienced similar psychic tellings. And it's even way way less likely to assert that their experiences were identical. So, due to the factor of extreme rarity/scarcity, you basically can't have multiple witnesses. The internet being available and cheap for 6 billion people makes your case even worse because you have 6 billion people for witnesses and they are failing you. Keep in mind that the internet is basically human life log, so timing and instant recognition is not an issue. Witnesses can write something and forget about it, and it will remain evidence. But there's no such thing. You never have any evidence. Your idea of convergence of sensory streams is nonsense because it's always just one person.

Compare that with the abundance of matching reports from normal waking people, our perceptions are identical between all of us every single time, regardless of the relativity of how each one of us may be perceiving things, the reports are always consistent, nevertheless. You cannot compare this with that. It's just absurd to even attempt that.

[Jirh]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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.

That could apply before, when free speech was an issue. Luckily, that isn't the case anymore. You're using an unfalsifiable claim that; because it happened before then it may be happening now.

Yes, it is possible, but unlikely. And my assessment is that the current scientific rigor is as best as it can get. It's really mostly a mechanical process at this point. There's not much discrimination against any ideas. They just have to be qualified enough to pass.

Quote

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.

I looked it up using DeepSeek. Nothing to conclude from that. No proof of anything. The study itself is criticized harshly, and an independent replicate of it failed to reproduce the same results.

Quote

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.

The medium from which you got the news is irrelevant. It's the fact that the news was even allowed into your perception in the first place; that's the elephant in the room that you're still missing.

Without knowing that a tornado actually happened, you'd think it's just some random nightmare. But because you had that specific knowledge that it actually happened somewhere on the planet, your mind made that connection. It filled in the gaps to solidify your delusions.

Quote

"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.

True, but that's not my point.

Quote

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.

I'm not using it to judge possibility or account for anything. It's just stating that everything is possible if the sample size is large enough, regardless of how unlikely it might seem. And we do have a large sample size of all human experience (billions of people living for 60+ years), so nothing out of the ordinary there.

Quote

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.

The law doesn't disprove psychic phenomenon. It disproves the value and meaning you're attaching to it, and consequently the way you believe it works. I actually know that psychic phenomenon is true. It's just not what you want it to be. You can read my posts earlier in this thread where I elaborated on this point.

Quote

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

Alright, you're allowed to be figurative, but I have to be literal. Ok, I guess. 🙄

Quote

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

I just didn't understand what that statement had to do with anything. Thought the emojis would express my feeling succinctly.

Edited 4 hours ago by Jirh

[Jirh]

2 hours ago, Human Mint said:

You can't disprove it either. (post-rational psychic phenomenon).

You can't be on this forum and think that you're arguing against a human figure of God up in the skies. C'mon.

Help me make sense of what you said. I don't understand.

[Human Mint]

31 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Help me make sense of what you said. I don't understand.

I am trying but is not easy.

On the other hand I understand you. Rationality is fun and you must train it to a degree.

But does it make you happy?

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Consider how few things you need before you consider entertaining something as real (the car scenario, the sister lying scenario, the helicopter scenario) despite the statistical irreducibility of the universe. Then compare that with my five criteria. We're always just providing a few cents of epistemic currency in our everyday life yet we entertain it as real. So it's not surprising that when we have to push back against a multiple-century old culture that suppresses dissent through all possible shady means, it comes off as less convincing. But you just have to remind yourself of your actual epistemic standards that you use yourself in everyday life to see through that. Remind yourself of your "common sense".

You keep going back to this nonsense. You are trying to equalize all inferences by ignoring the significance of historical data. Lack of basic common sense.

Let me respond to your useless and mostly unfalsifiable criteria once and for all:

1. Content match is subjective/relative, vague, and ambiguous.
2. Emotional significance is a fertile soil for confirmation bias, we remember the dreams that impacted us the most.
3. Selective time match where you count your hits and ignore your misses.
4. First occurrence relies on your feeling of novelty, which can be wrong. Do you keep a log of all your dreams?

What else?