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]

9 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 ignoring the huge environment upgrade that happened.

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 between your dream and real life. You're now convinced that there's some meaningful connection there.

Am I not being clear here? This is like the 3rd time I'm explaining this point.

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 23 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?

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-22 at 5:35 AM, 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.

 

When I said “obvious” psychic phenomena I meant obvious in a way that if you told someone else (assuming they don’t think you’re making it up) they would also see it as obvious, simply based on the description of it. 

So I didn’t make claims about Carl’s experiences (I haven’t read through all his replies), and I don’t know what other kinds of stories you’ve heard. But maybe you’ve never heard an “obvious” one, or if you have, maybe you didn’t believe it because someone only described it rather than it also being captured scientifically, in experiment or something of the like. 

 Imo someone could have an ambiguous sounding experience (from outside perspective) that from their pov is obviously psychic, becuase of the quality of the experience not just the content of it. But it’s difficult to argue that. 
 

On 2026-07-22 at 5:35 AM, Jirh said:

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.

If that’s some known model of the mind, it’s not what I referred to because I didn’t write based on any particular conceptual framework. 

I believe that we do have a local mind (on personal level, I’m speaking from dual perspective), but that it’s possible for connection between two minds and thus certain psychic phenomena, or that information from outside can enter your mind (clairvoyance perhaps), or you can perceive someone in deeper way where you can pick up on “inner world activity” that you couldn’t perceive based on just body language, tone etc (the typical non verbal communication), or even online, beyond just the writing. 

Mysterious? Yes but aren’t a lot of things…

Maybe you agree that it’s possible to feel other people’s energies, more or less strongly, now that’s perceiving beyond the normal sense perception right? But when it comes to thoughts/mind or even worldly happenings etc, then maybe as I said before you need the more obvious evidence, from some source or maybe if it would happen to you. Maybe it did happen to you at some point but wasn’t obvious enough, and you also saw your self deception which was more obvious, so that’s partly why you hold the view you do now, just guessing a little. 

On 2026-07-22 at 5:35 AM, Jirh said:

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!

That’s great you are able to feel that “magical-ness” of life, we all want that I think, and I agree the physical is not exception from it. Why would it be? We feel like we exist in the physical world, and it’s also mysterious if we are honest. But you can call technology mediated communication something else than psychic phenomena because you’re just taking a term and changing the definition because you’re not convinced the “regular” psychic stuff is true ehehe. 

On 2026-07-22 at 5:35 AM, Jirh said:

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.

What science has done is amazing ofc but we could call it something else as I said…
Speaking of psychic phenomena in the way I do doesn’t down-value science necessarily . But it happens here on this forum that people do, so I see the value in uplifting science too, just don’t steal words like that lol 

I just realized I’m guilty of the opposite actually, because sometimes when I use technology and its frustrating I will describe the experience as feeling “laggy” or even “hacky” in my brain, so I stole those words from the tech bros, so maybe I shouldn’t accuse you….

I don’t understand exactly what you mean by emotional sensitivity because people use the word emotion differently. I’m not super clear in these ideas myself but I think of sensitivity in very general way, related to perception. So if you for example feel someone else’s energy it can mean there is openness in your being and clearer perception that allows for it, and perhaps connection, so that’s a form of “sensitivity” meaning it’s able to be felt rather than someone being closed to it that is not able to feel it (not sensitive). 
Kind of.

Maybe I’m vague in this reply overall but I want to be improve at explaining myself overall without needing explicit examples. Especially these less tangible things. 

Edited 15 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-22 at 5:53 AM, Jirh said:

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.

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

You can have psychic experiences that you don’t control or chose, so that’s one reason it’s very difficult to “capture”, mine have been like that. But you said @Carl-Richard was trying to seem “innocent and egoless” or something when he said “it’s not my doing”. But I guess he meant what I said. 
 

The spontaneous ones are the most common, I’m convinced, although still rare, and being able to control is even more rare, exceptionally so 

And perhaps someone out there who can control it, or intentionally trigger them, maybe it’s limited in the way it can only happen with regards to “important things”.
 

Because psychic abilities, those few who have control (I believe they exist), I bet they are highly developed somehow or have gone deep into spirituality so it’s not gonna be just used “for whatever”, maybe they couldn’t even do it ”unnecessarily” if they wanted to (but they wouldn’t even want to is my guess).
 

Showing it to the world can be considered “important” yes I get that, but maybe it comes with significant risks. If someone showed the world super obvious psychic abilities that were captured, maybe they’d be put at risk as I said. Also people are very “sensationalist” not so deep, showing them to the world doesn’t mean it will help people get in touch with that dimension themselves, or in any way for that matter. Also, maybe there is already such evidence out there but it’s still not believed (I don’t have exact memory, just vague remembrances of seeing different clips and tv shows of people trying to prove such things, you are probably familiar with some too). 
 

But yes I’m also suprised why there it hasn’t come to the public eye so convincingly yet! 
 

Spiritual awakening is quite hard to describe yes, so “all encompassing” it is. So that is a huge topic in itself. I’ll let it that be

Edited 14 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

When I said “obvious” psychic phenomena I meant obvious in a way that if you told someone else (assuming they don’t think you’re making it up) they would also see it as obvious, simply based on the description of it. 

So I didn’t make claims about Carl’s experiences (I haven’t read through all his replies), and I don’t know what other kinds of stories you’ve heard. But maybe you’ve never heard an “obvious” one, or if you have, maybe you didn’t believe it because someone only described it rather than it also being captured scientifically, in experiment or something of the like. 

 Imo someone could have an ambiguous sounding experience (from outside perspective) that from their pov is obviously psychic, becuase of the quality of the experience not just the content of it. But it’s difficult to argue that.

Yes, it is difficult, because obviousness here is defined mainly based on feeling or intuition and subjective personal opinion, which is impossible to align between a small group of people, let alone 8 billion people.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

If that’s some known model of the mind, it’s not what I referred to because I didn’t write based on any particular conceptual framework. 

I believe that we do have a local mind (on personal level, I’m speaking from dual perspective), but that it’s possible for connection between two minds and thus certain psychic phenomena, or that information from outside can enter your mind (clairvoyance perhaps), or you can perceive someone in deeper way where you can pick up on “inner world activity” that you couldn’t perceive based on just body language, tone etc (the typical non verbal communication), or even online, beyond just the writing. 

Mysterious? Yes but aren’t a lot of things…

Everything is possible. Anything can be true. I could be a bird typing with my beak. Who knows? And so what? We can speculate and keep guessing infinitely. That doesn't get us any closer to truth.

Speculation and guesswork is the foundation of pseudoscience. I'm not interested in that.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe you agree that it’s possible to feel other people’s energies, more or less strongly, now that’s perceiving beyond the normal sense perception right? But when it comes to thoughts/mind or even worldly happenings etc, then maybe as I said before you need the more obvious evidence, from some source or maybe if it would happen to you. Maybe it did happen to you at some point but wasn’t obvious enough, and you also saw your self deception which was more obvious, so that’s partly why you hold the view you do now, just guessing a little.

No, I don't think it's technically possible to feel other people's energies.

I think that we make guesses based on familiar patterns from memory, and these guesses may or may not align with the reality of the other person. We may feel the guess, depending on how sensitive and open we are in that moment, but we can't technically feel the other person, not really.

The better someone is at making good guesses, the higher their empathy is considered to be.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

That’s great you are able to feel that “magical-ness” of life, we all want that I think, and I agree the physical is not exception from it. Why would it be? We feel like we exist in the physical world, and it’s also mysterious if we are honest. But you can call technology mediated communication something else than psychic phenomena because you’re just taking a term and changing the definition because you’re not convinced the “regular” psychic stuff is true ehehe. 

We may disagree on the labels but, that's alright.

In that case, I don't think psychic phenomenon is real. As long as you can't really tell apart a psychic telling from random noise with any amount of certainty, then it's not real, and you're imagining it.

How about this?

The next time you experience a psychic telling, write it down immediately. Post it on the forum if you like. Own it. Make it public. Poke my eyes with it. Don't leave any room for doubt.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

What science has done is amazing ofc but we could call it something else as I said…
Speaking of psychic phenomena in the way I do doesn’t down-value science necessarily . But it happens here on this forum that people do, so I see the value in uplifting science too, just don’t steal words like that lol 

I just realized I’m guilty of the opposite actually, because sometimes when I use technology and its frustrating I will describe the experience as feeling “laggy” or even “hacky” in my brain, so I stole those words from the tech bros, so maybe I shouldn’t accuse you….

It's alright. I see no problem with that.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

I don’t understand exactly what you mean by emotional sensitivity because people use the word emotion differently. I’m not super clear in these ideas myself but I think of sensitivity in very general way, related to perception. So if you for example feel someone else’s energy it can mean there is openness in your being and clearer perception that allows for it, and perhaps connection, so that’s a form of “sensitivity” meaning it’s able to be felt rather than someone being closed to it that is not able to feel it (not sensitive). 
Kind of.

I mean emotional sensitivity like closeness, intimacy, and deep familiarity with something.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

Maybe I’m vague in this reply overall but I want to be improve at explaining myself overall without needing explicit examples. Especially these less tangible things. 

You're doing fine. I actually find your posts a lot clearer and easier to understand and digest that Carl's posts.

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

You can have psychic experiences that you don’t control or chose, so that’s one reason it’s very difficult to “capture”, mine have been like that. But you said @Carl-Richard was trying to seem “innocent and egoless” or something when he said “it’s not my doing”. But I guess he meant what I said. 

The spontaneous ones are the most common, I’m convinced, although still rare, and being able to control is even more rare, exceptionally so 

And perhaps someone out there who can control it, or intentionally trigger them, maybe it’s limited in the way it can only happen with regards to “important things”.

Because psychic abilities, those few who have control (I believe they exist), I bet they are highly developed somehow or have gone deep into spirituality so it’s not gonna be just used “for whatever”, maybe they couldn’t even do it ”unnecessarily” if they wanted to (but they wouldn’t even want to is my guess).

Showing it to the world can be considered “important” yes I get that, but maybe it comes with significant risks. If someone showed the world super obvious psychic abilities that were captured, maybe they’d be put at risk as I said. Also people are very “sensationalist” not so deep, showing them to the world doesn’t mean it will help people get in touch with that dimension themselves, or in any way for that matter. Also, maybe there is already such evidence out there but it’s still not believed (I don’t have exact memory, just vague remembrances of seeing different clips and tv shows of people trying to prove such things, you are probably familiar with some too). 

You have quite a lot of beliefs about this topic. I wonder how many of them actually come from direct knowledge, if at all.

In any case, I will suggest again that you document your psychic experiences and keep them to yourself if you want. Then you will have your evidence.

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

But yes I’m also suprised why there it hasn’t come to the public eye so convincingly yet! 

No matter how much you try to hide something, if it's real, it will leak.

No one is that perfect at hiding truth.

Besides, we're already invaded in our privacy by the big companies. So they must know our secrets, and if they knew, they would leak them somehow.

There's only one explanation for why there's not even the slightest traces of psychic phenomenon, and it's because it doesn't exist. Very simply.

[Human Mint]

@Jirh The overall problem of rationality is that it overlooks feelings. This you can see for yourself.

Feelings are way much powerful than rationalists potraits them to be. And you can't explain feelings using your rationality.

Edited 12 hours ago by Human Mint

[Jirh]

@Human Mint 😴

[Human Mint]

2 hours ago, Jirh said:

@Human Mint 😴

Precisely.

[cetus]

The visions are clear now. I see all possible futures at once.

Q: How do you know future events before they happen?

A: From my dreams.

Q: Do all of your dreams come true? 

A: No. But I know which ones will.

Edited 4 hours ago by cetus

[Jirh]

12 minutes ago, cetus said:

The visions are clear now. I see all possible futures at once.

Q: How do you know future events before they happen?

A: From my dreams.

Q: Do all of your dreams come true? 

A: No. But I know which ones will.

This way of thinking has the tendency to create self-fulfilling prophecies.

Emotionally impactful dreams have higher chances of coming true just because we allow them to, whether it's a dream or a nightmare.

Edited 4 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

Just had a thought, I'll respond to you @Jirh later when I have time.

We should be aware of how we can frame the same things different ways. For example, a healer who can put their hands on someone and seemingly speed up healing, in the materialist epistemic paradigm, they will say "the sensual touch induces endorphinergic signalling which synergizes with the placebo effect which increases the innate regenerative mechanisms of the body". It's a very roundabout and "inside/outside" way of putting it. Meanwhile, a psychic will say "the healing energy leads to healing". It's a more elegant way of putting it; both may agree on the underlying effect, but they describe it differently. 

Similar with explaining precognition or telepathy with "very subtle implicit memory which the subject is unaware of having but which affects their inferences". Again the inside/outside split and hiding the "non-localitiness" in concepts like "subtle" and "unaware of having". Compare it to simply "you picked up information non-locally", again, much more elegant, and it explains the same phenomena which one can agree that is happening. 

This "lack of elegance" of the materialistic explanations indicate they are "epicycles", i.e. sometimes desperate attempts of the paradigm to deal with anomalies that challenges it. They are at least honest and not 'too' deceptive unlike jumping to ideas like "every unlikely event should be expected", as if it doesn't defeat any epistemic paradigm that tries to make non-trivial distinctions (any epistemic paradigm that tries to engage with probability and uncertainty rationally instead of dismissing it, i.e. not pure non-duality, ultimate skepticism, epistemic nihilism).

Same with the concept of "real" (in it being a frame). What we really mean by real (as opposed to "hallucinatory") is that it's somehow inter-subjectively corroborated and consistent. Notions like physical space "out there" and actual things happening in a localized matrix are concepts we use to "summarize" our felt notion of real, how most things we experience as real seem to relate to each other. It's fundamentally a frame. And like I've alluded to, there are other phenomena we feel like can touch on the "real" category as well, that break with these notions of space and locality, but still fit the inter-subjective and consistent qualities associated with "real". 

That's what I felt I uncovered with these three original dreams fitting the five criteria which notably includes being inter-subjectively corroborated in terms of place / time / type of events matching. And this was me being "nudged out of my sleep" so to speak (that's also a pun) in the sense that I was currently inside the materialist epistemic frame and I experienced a radical break with it. 

But then when you're open to the alternative frame, you're more open to simply use it where it seems to fit, because you're not trying to "prove" its existence or validity. You're just following your sense of what you think is real or not. That's what I did with some of my more liberal dream interpretations. But those I also qualify with what my level of credence is, i.e. the level of uncertainty I feel, like I do with all other kinds of observations and inferences.

Edited 4 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard Alright, no problemo.

I just want to restate that I actually like you even if we are disagreeing strongly. You're one of my favourite people on this forum.

Much love.

[cetus]

15 minutes ago, Jirh said:

This way of thinking invokes the tendency to create confirmation bias, aka self-fulfilling prophecy.

Interesting. So, you're saying I dream of an event then make it happen? Never thought of it that way.