My dreams are about future real life events?

[Sugarcoat]

22 minutes ago, Jirh said:

You said your precognitive experience happened in a trance state between waking and slumber. This means you've entered a state of altered perception. But it doesn't mean now you get to decide what perceptual openness means. You don't even have ownership of that experience. It happened to you. Then you interpreted it as meaningful. Then you reported it. None of that says anything about how valid your interpretation is.

Altered state is still a state im in, sober too. Ok and I don’t have control in general either? So I have no say in anything then?

5 hours ago, Jirh said:

Yeah sure anything can happen. Anything can be true.

You're talking about the realm of possibility and potential. But potential is not actuality.

?? That’s you writing from your conviction that psychic phenomena is equally as unlikely as something like a holographic pink elephant wearing a robe with panda sitting on top of it and eating cake while despacito is playing from a speaker on its lap appearing in your room right now??? No I’m not just speaking of “anything in the realm of possibility”. 
 

Tell someone on the street that dissolving the mind ego is possible, they will think you’re insane because they experience themselves as undeniably real and stable in reality. 
 

What you’re doing is like another version of that

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Jirh]

25 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Altered state is still a state im in, sober too. Ok and I don’t have control in general either? So I have no say in anything then?

You do have a say; an equal say, not an authoritative say.

Quote

?? That’s you writing from your conviction that psychic phenomena is equally as unlikely as something like a holographic pink elephant wearing a robe with panda sitting on top of it and eating cake while despacito is playing from a speaker on its lap appearing in your room right now??? No I’m not just speaking of “anything in the realm of possibility”. 

It's funny you thought of a pink elephant in specific. I had written that exact thought "pink elephant" a few hours ago in reply to you but then deleted it. I also added silly descriptions to the pink elephant but different to your descriptions, I was thinking about the elephant's tusks and trunk if that helps. I decided to delete it because it didn't come out as I intended.

It's fascinating to think about this coincidence, actually. But I still wouldn't consider it psychic. It's likely that we both saw the pink elephant picture posted by Lordfall yesterday and our minds worked in similar ways for some reason that made us think that exact thought. Look here:

Quote

Tell someone on the street that dissolving the mind ego is possible, they will think you’re insane because they experience themselves as undeniably real and stable in reality. 

What you’re doing is like another version of that

I don't understand this part. Could you elaborate?

Edited 17 hours ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ease up, man.

I don't know, man, what do you call a person who contradicts themselves, lies and plays psychological games instead of just engaging with the subject matter?

[Carl-Richard]

There are two ways you end up on my ignore list: 1. your posts are literally schizophrenic, 2. you engage in a discussion in what seems to be good faith but then you withdraw when it gets hard, start contradicting yourself and start talking about utterly irrelevant shit, turning whatever is left of the discussion into a shitfest. Only two people have managed to actually fill criteria #2. And there is a word that describes their behavior with DSM-5 precision.

[Inliytened1]

51 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

There are two ways you end up on my ignore list: 1. your posts are literally schizophrenic, 2. you engage in a discussion in what seems to be good faith but then you withdraw when it gets hard, start contradicting yourself and start talking about utterly irrelevant shit, turning whatever is left of the discussion into a shitfest. Only two people have managed to actually fill criteria #2. And there is a word that describes their behavior with DSM-5 precision.

There's an ignore list ? 😀😃

[Jirh]

9 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't know, man, what do you call a person who contradicts themselves, lies and plays psychological games instead of just engaging with the subject matter?

1. I've engaged long enough. You took too long to reply. The discussion lost momentum and I got bored. Nothing personal here. If anyone else did the same, I would probably feel the same.
2. I never lied. It is possible that I forgot parts of the discussion and said things differently in a way that contradicts some things I said in the past (thanks to your delay). But you're not engaging in good faith, so you assume the worst.
3. I never played psychological games or ego games or any kind of games. I am being fully honest and transparent, always have been. I clearly stated that I wanted to leave the discussion. You kept trying to pull me back in. You've made this discussion about me. As if my approval is more important than the truth.

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

There are two ways you end up on my ignore list: 1. your posts are literally schizophrenic, 2. you engage in a discussion in what seems to be good faith but then you withdraw when it gets hard, start contradicting yourself and start talking about utterly irrelevant shit, turning whatever is left of the discussion into a shitfest. Only two people have managed to actually fill criteria #2. And there is a word that describes their behavior with DSM-5 precision.

Oh, no.

Oh dear almighty Carl'im, have mercy on my powerless ignorant soul. Redeem the error of my ways and guide me to grace.

Please don't throw me down the torturous forum hell of your ignore list. I mean I'm already "psycho" as you put it. Are you trying to invoke a psychotic break or something?

Grow up, dude.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

1. [...]
2. I never lied. It is possible that I forgot parts of the discussion and said things differently in a way that contradicts some things I said in the past (thanks to your delay).

If your statements about what convinces you about the reality of a phenomena ("science will convince me") are dependent on local events in a discussion and not your values, you either have dementia, schizophrenia, or you're only concerned about winning in a local part of a discussion and not honestly evaluating what is true and thus a psychopath.

Put more simply: how is it possible to "forget" that something extremely general like "science" would convince you that psychic phenomena are real?

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

Oh dear almighty Carl'im, have mercy on my powerless ignorant soul. Redeem the error of my ways and guide me to grace.

Please don't throw me down the torturous forum hell of your ignore list.

*Amen . 

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

If your statements about what convinces you about the reality of a phenomena ("science will convince me") are dependent on local events in a discussion and not your values, you either have dementia, schizophrenia, or you're only concerned about winning in a local part of a discussion and not honestly evaluating what is true and thus a psychopath.

Unfortunately, you are not a psychiatrist to make such diagnoses. You are merely a self-proclaimed psychic who can magically diagnose people through the internet. And your success rate for now is 0%.

But I get your desire to paint me as such. It's normal. And it's gonna be okay. Trust the process.

But despite your massive ad hominem, here's a rough chronological order (from memory) of your shifting local standards:

• First, it was about your personal precognitive dreams.
• Then, it was about convergence of sensory streams.
• Then, it was about morphic resonance.
• Then, it was about Tom Campbell.
• Then, it was about shared dreams.
• Then, it was about a weak meta-analysis.
• Then, it was about Dr. Cardeña's review.

So clearly, you don't have any standards. My standard is clear:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Whether the evidence is coming from science or direct personal evidence does not really matter. I am intellectually flexible enough to accept both. But you don't have either. If you did, you wouldn't be so desperate in trying to convince me. If you did, you'd actually say: "Here's the truth, take it or leave it. It makes no difference to me."

But it seems like you're trying to win an argument. And on top of that, you project that behavior of yours onto me, which I purposefully ignored multiple times btw, because being so eager to play the projection card doesn't help my truth. It's evident that it didn't help yours.

Or maybe you're just unsure of your own beliefs and trying to achieve more certainty through my approval. In this case, I'll save you time and effort and confirm that I will not look at your "evidence" until you apologize for the disrespect and name-calling and start engaging in good faith like a respectful mature person. And even then, my engagement with the topic is not guaranteed anymore.

Edited 1 hour ago by Jirh

[Jirh]

55 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Put more simply: how is it possible to "forget" that something extremely general like "science" would convince you that psychic phenomena are real?

I didn't forget that. I forgot the context in which I said what I said.

My standard isn't science. Science is just one application of the standard. You could give me a pre-recorded dream journal and it would be enough for me. It would be something that would satisfy the three components I outlined that science does satisfy. It would poke my eyes out etc...

But regardless of that, and to your question, human memory is not perfect, and it is a very common experience to forget many things in normal healthy people. This is like common sense that you are missing.

Edited 1 hour ago by Jirh

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

Unfortunately, you are not a psychiatrist to make such diagnoses. You are merely a self-proclaimed psychic who can magically diagnose people through the internet. And your success rate for now is 0%.

But I get your desire to paint me as such. It's normal. And it's gonna be okay. Trust the process.

But despite your massive ad hominem, here's a rough chronological order (from memory) of your shifting local standards:

• First, it was about your personal precognitive dreams.
• Then, it was about convergence of sensory streams.
• Then, it was about morphic resonance.
• Then, it was about Tom Campbell.
• Then, it was about shared dreams.
• Then, it was about a weak meta-analysis.
• Then, it was about Dr. Cardeña's review.

So clearly, you don't have any standards.

Wow you just discovered how a conversation works, going from point to point. But you "forgot" that a conversation is often two-way. You asked for scientific evidence, I gave you it.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

My standard is clear:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Whether the evidence is coming from science or direct personal evidence does not really matter. I am intellectually flexible enough to accept both. But you don't have either. If you did, you wouldn't be so desperate in trying to convince me. If you did, you'd actually say: "Here's the truth, take it or leave it. It makes no difference to me."

But it seems like you're trying to win an argument. And on top of that, you project that behavior of yours onto me, which I purposefully ignored multiple times btw, because being so eager to play the projection card doesn't help my truth. It's evident that it didn't help yours.

Or maybe you're just unsure of your own beliefs and trying to achieve more certainty through my approval. In this case, I'll save you time and effort and confirm that I will not look at your "evidence" until you apologize for the disrespect and name-calling and start engaging in good faith like a respectful mature person. And even then, my engagement with the topic is not guaranteed anymore.

 

1 hour ago, Jirh said:

I didn't forget that. I forgot the context in which I said what I said.

My standard isn't science. Science is just one application of the standard. You could give me a pre-recorded dream journal and it would be enough for me. It would be something that would satisfy the three components I outlined that science does satisfy. It would poke my eyes out etc...

But regardless of that, and to your question, human memory is not perfect, and it is a very common experience to forget many things in normal healthy people. This is like common sense that you are missing.

All this bullshit just to not admit that you can't answer to the scientific evidence that you asked for. Consistent bullshit > honest engagement => psychopathy. Our engagement is over until you answer to the evidence you yourself asked for (is it satisfactory evidence? Is it not? Why?).

Edited 27 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Jirh]

@Carl-Richard

Quote

Our engagement is over

Good. I hope so.

Quote

the evidence you yourself asked for (is it satisfactory evidence? Is it not? Why?).

Can't say anything about something I didn't even look at.

You haven't met the basic respectful engagement rules for you to demand such things.

You just can't go to your university and throw shit at your colleagues and demand that they should look at your "evidence". It doesn't work that way. You will get fired until you apologize, and even then, maybe you'll be accepted back, but probably not.

I am still offering generosity. Provide a pre-recorded dream journal that doesn't require me to think twice about it. It's lazy, I know. But it's still more than what you deserve after the disrespect.