My dreams are about future real life events?

[Jirh]

2 minutes ago, cetus said:

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

Yes, and it applies to nightmares as well and really generally in life.

Our beliefs can have real but unforeseen consequences.

[cetus]

@Jirh Thought = form. If that's the case, I'll be sure to dream good thoughts for all.

[Human Mint]

The thing is, is easy to see that your dream is your imagination. But can you see that about your waking life? That's the hard part.

 

[cetus]

2 hours ago, Human Mint said:

The thing is, is easy to see that your dream is your imagination. But can you see that about your waking life? That's the hard part.

 

Ever awaken from a dream that is so real you're not sure which is the true reality?

[Jirh]

7 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

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. 

These are not the same things said in different ways. Not even close.

"The sensual touch induces endorphinergic signalling which synergizes with the placebo effect which increases the innate regenerative mechanisms of the body" is simultaneously infinitely more truthful (epistemically correct) and useful (pragmatic) and magical (ontologically correct) than the bland, useless, ignorant, tautological, mythical "healing energy leads to healing".

Notice that the scientific explanation offers many things that the psychic explanation doesn't:

• A clear unhidden mechanism.
• Epistemic humility.
• Openness for being wrong.
• Clarity.
• Capacity for criticism.
• Possibility of development.
• A whole bunch of established terms.

The magical part is that each of those terms/components is inexplicable ultimately, yet somehow, we can spot it and make use of it.

The psychic explanation is vague and closed and completely useless. Nothing to find there. Nothing to discuss. Nothing to improve. Purely mythical and dogmatic. It offers nothing. It proves nothing. It says nothing.

Edited Friday at 08:01 AM by Jirh

[Jirh]

Believe it or not, till this day and after all these years doing personal development and enlightenment work, deconstructing the self and questioning my beliefs, I still catch my self having these thoughts about telepathy, and I still put in conscious effort to remind myself how delusional they are.

Fuck these sticky shitty beliefs man. I've ridden myself of many beliefs, but these ones about telepathy still haunt me sometimes.

[Human Mint]

19 hours ago, cetus said:

Ever awaken from a dream that is so real you're not sure which is the true reality?

Not really. Maybe when I was a kid. Although when I am dreaming I don't know I am asleep.

[Human Mint]

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

Believe it or not, till this day and after all these years doing personal development and enlightenment work, deconstructing the self and questioning my beliefs, I still catch my self having these thoughts about telepathy, and I still put in conscious effort to remind myself how delusional they are.

Fuck these sticky shitty beliefs man. I've ridden myself of many beliefs, but these ones about telepathy still haunt me sometimes.

Well that's good progress. I wouldn't like that either. You can be your own worst enemy.

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-21 at 7:52 PM, Jirh said:

To me, common sense is more like a stepping stone towards higher truths. It's the base that I like to stand upon in my search for truth, so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel in everything every single time.

You are basically implying that your daily experience is as common people’s, so that’s why you’re able to use common sense as your ground, because it’s based on the experience of common people 

Edited Saturday at 03:57 PM by Sugarcoat

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

You are basically implying that your daily experience is as common people’s, so that’s why you’re able to use common sense as your ground, because it’s based on the experience of common people 

Not necessarily.

But I can tap into it and out of it at will.

If spiritual people are wired differently than normies, then I am wired differently than both. I understand both perspectives and can tap into and outta them wherever I want.

I can hangout with high consciousness and low consciousness people. But my preference is high consciousness.

[cetus]

20 hours ago, Human Mint said:

Although when I am dreaming I don't know I am asleep.

People generally equate dreaming with sleep but maybe we should rethink that.

Edited Saturday at 08:01 PM by cetus

[Human Mint]

1 hour ago, cetus said:

People generally equate dreaming with sleep but maybe we should rethink that.

For sure, I still need to recontextualize a lot of stuff. Eager to do so.

[Carl-Richard]

@Jirh I will respond to each point when I can, but I think if you can find me a non-psychic (physical) scenario analogous to the five criteria that I would not believe to be real, then we can progress in the discussion.

Imagine you're watching TV and you're flipping through channels quickly without seeing what channel it is. You flip through maybe 100 channels, and one of them shows a clip of burning buildings and lots of smoke and flames, lots of devastation, but that's all you can really see before you flip the channel again. None of the other hundred channels showed anything remotely similar. It also seemed quite serious so you paused a little when you saw it.

Then later the same day, you open the newspaper on your phone, and it reports the largest fire in 100 years in the country. Now, would you think the channel where you saw the burning flames, lots of devastation, even though you only saw some parts of it, is more likely than not the same burning fire and flames you now see being reported in the news? If yes or if no, why or why not?

I believe this analogy covers the five criteria quite well and the issues you raised of approximate similarity, selection bias, not keeping track of the full picture, etc.

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard

I will respond to that later.

 But look at this:

😂🤯

[Jirh]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Jirh I will respond to each point when I can, but I think if you can find me a non-psychic (physical) scenario analogous to the five criteria that I would not believe to be real, then we can progress in the discussion.

Imagine you're watching TV and you're flipping through channels quickly without seeing what channel it is. You flip through maybe 100 channels, and one of them shows a clip of burning buildings and lots of smoke and flames, lots of devastation, but that's all you can really see before you flip the channel again. None of the other hundred channels showed anything remotely similar. It also seemed quite serious so you paused a little when you saw it.

Then later the same day, you open the newspaper on your phone, and it reports the largest fire in 100 years in the country. Now, would you think the channel where you saw the burning flames, lots of devastation, even though you only saw some parts of it, is more likely than not the same burning fire and flames you now see being reported in the news? If yes or if no, why or why not?

I believe this analogy covers the five criteria quite well and the issues you raised of approximate similarity, selection bias, not keeping track of the full picture, etc.

This is circular reasoning, because it is claiming truth to the assumption that it is trying to prove (convergence of sensory streams).

You are asking me to accept this TV scenario as a reasonable inference at the same level of a precognitive dream scenario, as if they are structurally identical. You are conflating the sameness of their nature with the sameness of their structure. Yes, I do agree that life is a dream in essence. However, that does not mean the dream allows everything. A real gun and a toy gun look identical, but one fires bullets and the other fires nothing. Structure without mechanism is meaningless.

The TV scenario has a known physical mechanism: Fire happens → Camera records it → Signal broadcasts → You see it on TV. The dream scenario does not. You have to assert that: Future event → Somehow transmits information backward in time → You dream about it.

As well, the TV scenario has multiple paths to verification, while the dream scenario does not have any. In the dream scenario, you have nothing: No recording of the dream. No independent witness. No timestamp that can be externally verified. No way to prove the dream happened exactly as you remember it. You can't even re-access the same prophecy you once had access to. You only have your memory of it, if that (because it's likely more distorted than you think).

Lastly, the chronological order of events is clear and sensical in the TV scenario. The event happened in real time, then later was broadcasted through various outlets like TV or newspaper or something like that. With the dream scenario, you're claiming a reverse order of events. You get the news before they actually happen, so they are not converging with any other source, and you are more likely to be the cause than the neutral prophet.

[Carl-Richard]

( @Jirh It's gonna be tough to clear up the responses when I have the time and I'm not tired, but I will do it when I have the time and I'm not tired).

 

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

This is circular reasoning, because it is claiming truth to the assumption that it is trying to prove (convergence of sensory streams).

You can distinguish between apparent convergence (the evidence) and actual convergence (what you're trying to prove), you don't have to call it a contradiction. You do this frame thing where you create an error where it doesn't necessarily have to exist.

 

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

You are asking me to accept this TV scenario as a reasonable inference at the same level of a precognitive dream scenario, as if they are structurally identical. You are conflating the sameness of their nature with the sameness of their structure. Yes, I do agree that life is a dream in essence. However, that does not mean the dream allows everything. A real gun and a toy gun look identical, but one fires bullets and the other fires nothing. Structure without mechanism is meaningless.

The TV scenario has a known physical mechanism: Fire happens → Camera records it → Signal broadcasts → You see it on TV. The dream scenario does not.

You're assuming the TV recording is an actual recording and not say from a movie, or a fictional TV show, or some kind of AI-generated clip. It can be anything. It looks very real, but its source is ambiguous. That's a proposed physical mechanism for an actual recording, but you can give mechanisms for the dreams as well (I do in the next paragraphs).
 

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

You have to assert that: Future event → Somehow transmits information backward in time → You dream about it.

It's not backwards in time (not that it fundamentally matters, but in terms of degree of credence). It's temporally parallel. When you're asleep dreaming, you're dreaming about the event at the same time as it is happening in real life (you find out about it afterwards). The information does not have to travel in "time", only "space" (non-locally), outwards like electromagnetic radiation (if we are to use a physical analogy; of course, reality need not necessarily work that way).

Here is a proposed mechanism (in line with morphic resonance): stronger event in terms of emotional significance (or simply "significance"), stronger "signal" is sent out, easier picked up (resonated with), especially when in an altered state of consciousness like sleep where usual egoic blinders are not as much in the way. That's how you would explain when you lose signal on your phone when there is bad service or your wireless headset when you go too far from your phone (the information disappears because the signal is too weak).

"But how do we test it?" I linked a study which you tried to debunk with an AI response (I haven't responded to it yet), but honestly Tom Campbell's personal stories (watch his JRE appearance) where he actually claims to gather useful information from reality non-locally is perhaps another path of inquiry ("charlatan" - judge for yourself, see if he comes off as genuine or some kind of ego-maniac; I personally think he is Enlightened).

 

10 hours ago, Jirh said:

As well, the TV scenario has multiple paths to verification, while the dream scenario does not have any. In the dream scenario, you have nothing: No recording of the dream. No independent witness. No timestamp that can be externally verified. No way to prove the dream happened exactly as you remember it. You can't even re-access the same prophecy you once had access to. You only have your memory of it, if that (because it's likely more distorted than you think).

1. Let's find a better analogy, maybe we have to go into the jungle again, and 2. except if somebody else dreamt the same thing (and perhaps they were together with you in the dream and they verify that). Shared dreams (as far as they are claimed to be shared) are known to happen. "But how can you know you dreamt the same thing? You and they only have access to their own dream". How do you know we see the same thing? Same fundamental problem there, give or take certain kinds of consistency.

Again, I want you to find an analogy of a 'physical' situation that follows the five criteria and which I don't believe is real.

 

And if the burning TV example was difficult, imagine if you instead saw PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of his own house in the TV clip, then later the same day (or perhaps plus minus a week or so given the conditions I gave) you see his YouTube video explaining that this in fact happened to him. That would definitely get your mind in a certain direction.

Edited yesterday at 05:18 AM by Carl-Richard

[Sugarcoat]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

( @Jirh It's gonna be tough to clear up the responses when I have the time and I'm not tired, but I will do it when I have the time and I'm not tired).

 

Yea this inner world stuff has been extremely overwhelming lately,  can’t really understand how people answer so effortlessly and fast on these difficult topics, must be nice to have such a “solid and stable sense of self and reality” that it’s what makes sense, easy to explain that stuff just refer to what has already been stated by people who live life from that place and assume it’s all to reality. Could edit more but inner world stuff is distracting me again as usual 

Edited yesterday at 05:17 AM by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-23 at 5:06 PM, Jirh said:

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.

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.

 

I think you’re underestimating how clear subjective experience can be. 
 

I bookmarked my response to Unborntao when he asked me about telepathy, because I gave example of a psychic experience I had there. So feel free to read that one if you want what I consider obvious example. 

On 2026-07-23 at 5:06 PM, Jirh said:

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.

Sounds to me just a lack of experiences of it, and also that it’s hard to prove scientifically (idk if they’ve tried). 

I don’t know what you’re guessing. Some in society seem to use word “energy” as in a kind of sum of a persons aesthetic, personality, body language etc. Thats more what I call “vibe”.  I mean energy as in the most literal way of the word, you can feel it (our own is most accessible ime)

Do you believe what you experience of others (overall) is all your own projection or is that what you’re saying? That you’re not able to access and experience something beyond that, a cleaner perception of them? And I still mean in dualistic experience.

Edit: I just wanna add that, regarding feeling others energies clearly, it’s very rare experience for me, most people I don’t feel anything particular from, some very subtle. 

On 2026-07-23 at 5:06 PM, Jirh said:

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.

About 2 months ago I started to write like you said for myself + writing about other inner stuff, so I am doing that. I don’t feel need to post certain things (for now). Sharing something doesn’t necessarily feel enriching, as some things feel like they’re so “deep inside” that talking about them feels quite empty becuase they’re not sensed/experienced in that “outward” dimension. 
 

Also, sharing doesn’t mean it helps anyone or anything. If someone hears about a convincing psychic experience, so what? Most people are not gonna get closer to having them themselves by hearing about it. But it can shift paradigms yes in some cases, so that’s a possibility and can be helpful.

On 2026-07-23 at 5:06 PM, Jirh said:

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

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

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

 I mentioned about the stealing of the words in a joking way lol

Ok interesting way to define it there

Thanks, I find your posts very smooth to follow along too. Responding is harder but reading is light. 

Edited yesterday at 02:42 PM by Sugarcoat

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-07-23 at 5:18 PM, Jirh said:

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

I don’t think the big companies and institutions etc would care about some woo woo sounding posts here

They sometimes even don’t believe scientific things that go a bit outside the convention. For example someone may improve a health condition drastically through lifestyle change and share about it but it’s still not believed 

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard

Look, man. I think I have already debunked most or all of your claims, so I'm not going to engage any longer. And now you are giving me homework, but your homework is too long already, and you likely won't catch up.

It's alright. I'm not here to debate or convince you of anything. My initial position was that of carefulness. I told you to be careful with these beliefs at the beginning, and now I am reminding myself and you. You can believe whatever you want, it's not my business, nor my job to debunk your beliefs.

In any case, I think all you have done here so far is making groundless claims, referring to anecdotes, and crafting analogy after another.

If you ever have something tangible; a pre-recorded dream journal, an independent witness, a testable mechanism... I'll be happy to look at it. Until then, take care. I've said enough. And I have nothing more to say.

Edited yesterday at 04:05 PM by Jirh