My dreams are about future real life events?

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Sugarcoat said:

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

Clear to whom?

No one is above self-deception.

Quote

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. 

I looked at it. It's a coincidence. A very common one these days.

Quote

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. 

I understand perfectly and am very familiar with the phenomenon you're describing. It's called empathy, and I have plenty of it. And I appreciate the care you're taking to draw this distinction. I want to meet you there, because I think we're circling something real, but from different angles.

First, I don't believe my experience of others is all my own projection. That would be solipsism, and I don't buy that. I believe others exist and each have their own bubble of experience.

But where I diverge from you is that I don't think that perception is received so much as it is resonantly constructed in real-time.

If you carefully examine what happens when empathy happens, you will spot the distinction I'm referring to. Right now for you it seems like you're catching a fully differentiated energy from an external source. I am saying the energy itself is an undifferentiated potential, and it's coming from within you, not the external source; Basically, your mind is doing the interpretation. This is extremely subtle. It happens extremely fast, most people don't notice it. The next time you catch a "vibe", remember my suggestion. Notice how your mind is largely doing most of the work. The "vibe" is raw. The meaning is yours.

But notice, I'm not saying there's no external reality. I'm saying you never touch it directly. You only ever touch your experience of it. And that includes the experience of "feeling someone's vibe".

Quote

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. 

It's alright. I respect that.

Edited 13 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

@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.

You have not actually "debunked" anything. You have brought up kinds of things I've already considered. The tension between "coincidence" and reality has always been there. It's just you seem to think categorically "coincidence" wins every time for psychic phenomena. Yet there is no clear standard for this, you just point to some arguments and assert they debunk it in aggregate, but you fail to explain exactly why they should debunk it and the scenarios which they don't debunk it.

If you can give the exact criteria for when you consider psychic phenomena or epistemically analogous physical scenarioes to not be "debunked" (and that it does seem to be categorically grounded and not some arbitrary accumulation of criteria), then you have a point. My point is that the way you judge something to be real is always an "arbitrary" accumulation of criteria, it's always a statistical case of weighing your credence for a hypothesis. So expecting to "debunk" something is the wrong expectation, you can only expect to persuade through making someone consider things they have not considered (and assume they are consistent in the application of their own criteria). That's why I'm asking for a physical analogy for the five criteria that I would not believe to be real. Then maybe I'll find something I've not considered.

Edited 12 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yet there is no clear standard for this.

If you can give the exact criteria for when you consider psychic phenomena or epistemically analogous physical scenarioes to not be "debunked" (and that it does seem to be categorically grounded and not some arbitrary accumulation of criteria), then you have a point.

Here is a clear standard:

• Something evident enough that you can shove it and rub in my face and I cannot deny it.
• Something clear enough that you can poke my eyes out with it.
• Something stable enough that you can return to it whenever you want.

Science gives you all that.

Quote

My point is that the way you judge something to be real is always an "arbitrary" accumulation of criteria, it's always a statistical case of weighing your credence for a hypothesis. So expecting to "debunk" something is the wrong expectation, you can only expect to persuade through making someone consider things they have not considered (and assume they are consistent in the application of their own criteria). That's why I'm asking for a physical analogy for the five criteria that I would not believe to be real. Then maybe I'll find something I've not considered.

It's not arbitrary. Your reasoning is arbitrary. This radical epistemic relativism is unhealthy. It ignores the reality and equalizes truth with bullshit. Again, you can do that, I'm not gonna stop you. But be careful where it's gonna take you, cuz it's not pretty.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jirh

[Jirh]

I think I've been extremely generous this whole time entertaining and walking through the nonsense of absolute relativism. So, I'll end with this:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Anything less than that is unacceptable. Period.

Good luck.

Edited 11 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

31 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Here is a clear standard:

• Something evident enough that you can shove it and rub in my face and I cannot deny it.
• Something clear enough that you can poke my eyes out with it.
• Something stable enough that you can return to it whenever you want.

Science gives you all that.

Ooo, a 2025 meta-analysis on 26 telecommunication telepathy experiments found overall positive results: https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/download/25934/24357/74647

The telephone telepathy study I mentioned and which you said others have failed to replicate have actually been successfully replicated in various settings. This is not uncommon for even "rigorous" scientific in fields like behavioral science, biotech; if a study is even attempted replicated (which is actually rare), you tend to get some replications and some failed replications (read about the "replication crisis").

And even if you get some successful replications (or only successful ones), you could be wrong about what you're actually testing (the proposed relationships could be spurious or influenced by confounding factors). So scientific evidence is also strictly only something that adds credence, it's not strictly in the realm of "debunking". Especially something like telepathy, which can be dependent on state of mind and which can be influenced by the experimental situation itself, could be simply not picked up as much in experimental research, and that would be a limitation of the methods and not reflective of the underlying phenomena it is trying to test.

[Carl-Richard]

 

 

Quote

In 2018, Professor Etzel Cardeña, PhD, published a landmark review paper surveying thousands of psi studies in “American Psychologist,” one of psychology’s most respected journals. In this conversation with Hans Busstra, Cardeña explains his main findings and why a dismissal of psi without looking at the data is “as unscientific as you can get.” Cardeña’s conclusion is that the cumulative evidence for psi phenomena is so strong that outright dismissal is no longer scientifically justified.

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-evidence-for-the-most-compelling-psi-phenomena/seeing/