My dreams are about future real life events?

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's what I said.

So chill.

[Davino]

Chill

Edited 9 hours ago by Davino

[Natasha Tori Maru]

@Carl-Richard back on track.

Picture this (if you will): Tool. Loud. Training ride on a hilly bushland road. Sprints on an aluminium single speed bike. 

Legit played Tool with you in mind (I recall telling you about it a while ago). Deliberate music choice. 

Went so hard at the end I got off and spewed everywhere, right as 7:40 "invincible" comes on (you'll know the rhythmic insistent guitars). Looked up and two cyclists had stopped to check if I was okay, wiped off the vomit and replied "Yeah, how you doing?" ...in the most sleazy accidental tone with a head nod. The sleaze was horrid. I dont know why it came out that way 😭

Opened this thread to see:

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's sleazy

Carl. 

IT IS SLEAZE ❤️‍🔥

[Jirh]

8 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Jirh's aim is to make me stop being mean.

That's not true. I can only tell you what I like or dislike and hope for change. And I did that, repeatedly. I cannot control you. I never tried to. The most I believe I can do is make a suggestion, and it's up to you to take it or leave it.

The difference between us is that you believe in this paradigm of control, and so you are trying to control my worldview, convince me of yours, shame me for not agreeing with you via name-calling and other manipulation techniques. And in doing so, you project your own paradigm onto me. You think I operate in the same way.

Given that context, maybe all of your meanness was an attempt to trigger me and to force me out of my chill state, just to make me re-engage with the topic I decided to stop engaging?

Quote

It's sleazy because it's a kind of love bombing tactic which feels weird when you couple it with whatever else is happening.

That's ridiculous! It was a genuine, humble, and balanced expression.

I did not concede on this topic or on your lack of respect. I conceded on intellectual faculties. You are more capable than me intellectually. That's not a compliment. It's the truth that I perceive.

Plus, if it's a love bombing tactic, then explain this comment a few months ago, it was about you:

Also, this more recent comment in this exact same thread:

On 24/07/2026 at 3:15 AM, Jirh said:

@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.

You haven't read me correctly in all of your attempts. Maybe your psychic abilities are not as good as you think they are. Your success rate is still 0%.

Plus, other sensory streams are agreeing with me, so how about that? 

Quote

"But I didn't explicitly have that in mind while saying it!" But it facilitates your aim, doesn't it? Manipulation does not have to be conscious. Especially if you're a socio-logist-, a soci-al worker- a so-prano singer- a - never mind.

No, I am well aware of my mind and what's going on inside it. You have no access to that.

I am conscious of my own mind. You are not conscious of my own mind. You cannot make claims about things you have no access to.

I think this is the biggest problem with your psychic paradigm in a nutshell. There is this belief that you can access other minds, somehow someway, via intellectual force or otherwise via intuition. But it simply isn't true. It has been debunked repeatedly.

Edited 3 hours ago by Jirh

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-08-07 at 6:18 PM, Jirh said:

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

 

 Regarding perceptual openness, yes it’s a broad term ig so that can mean a lot of things. I don’t claim I know all about it, but what I mean is that I’ve  experienced how when the ego structure loosens up its like an open enough state that made it possible for me to have more more “woo woo” experiences. It’s not the whole story but I noticed clear correlation there.

Also the combination of my own experience there and the fact that most people in society and media don’t talk about these phenomena barely at all, suggests most aren’t having those experiences, and since average people have average dense egos I feel I can draw that correlation for more than just myself. 
 

On 2026-08-07 at 6:18 PM, Jirh said:

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:

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

That’s funny you mention😂 I may or may not have seen that post, but occasionally when I think of this topic of infinite possibilities or how some say reality is chaos etc and I think of some “random thing” as an example for it, I’ve thought of pink elephant before, it may be picked up from somewhere where I’ve heard it being used as example in similar contexts, don’t remember clearly. I get your possible explanation there, could be yea. 
 

The last part I meant that average people (I’m not firm on what that means but it’s useful term for now), their reality entails having such an obvious daily experience of being real human and it’s almost as if everyone around them confirms it and also all the information they can consume, just society in general. So for us it’s obvious the ego structure can dissolve more or less it’s not completely rigid, but a lot of people would consider ego dissolution insane concept, they wouldn’t even get what you mean at all, because it doesn’t match anything in their experience. 

I meant there’s some similarity there imo to how you are coming at this topic of psychic phenomena, I’m not at all saying you’re like those people obviously but just that you don’t experience the psychic stuff (or in a way you’d think is obvious) maybe you also have somewhat stable solid like sense of reality daily, so the science paradigm makes sense to your experience. But if you had different experience you’d change your view, but you speak as if you need science to change your view.
 

Science btw doesn’t say pseudoscience isn’t true, it says “we just can’t prove it” or am I wrong? 
 

I kinda go all in on my replies now but let me know if it’s too much if I’m not reading the room properly 
 

Edited 2 hours ago by Sugarcoat

[Jirh]

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

 Regarding perceptual openness, yes it’s a broad term ig so that can mean a lot of things. I don’t claim I know all about it, but what I mean is that I’ve  experienced how when the ego structure loosens up its like a open enough state that made it possible for me to have more more “woo woo” experiences. It’s not the whole story but I noticed clear correlation there.

I appreciate the honesty and humility in this even though I don't share those experiences myself.

What's more likely, though? That altered perception creates altered conclusions? Or that altered perception creates more perceptual openness?

In other words, are these 'woo woo' experiences a product of that perceptual shift or a result of access to something external?

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

Also the combination of my own experience there and the fact that most people in society and media don’t talk about these phenomena barely at all, suggests most aren’t having those experiences, and since average people have average dense egos I feel I can draw that correlation for more than just myself. 

Schizophrenics have those experiences regularly. But they are pathologized and called delusional.

Personally, I don't think all schizophrenics are pathological or delusional. I think we can draw some insightful conclusions from what they perceive. I just don't agree that their direct conclusions are true. I think the insights are deeper and more subtle.

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

That’s funny you mention😂 I may or may not have seen that post

There's no may or may not. You did see it, and my explanation holds up 

4 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

but occasionally when I think of this topic of infinite possibilities or how some say reality is chaos etc and I think of some “random thing” as an example for it, I’ve thought of pink elephant before, it may be picked up from somewhere where I’ve heard it being used as example in similar contexts, don’t remember clearly. I get your possible explanation there, could be yea. 

My explanation is closer and more local in time and place.

And we're like-minded, so there's no coincidence! Oops! I mean it's just a coincidence lol

Why reach for some distant abstract explanations when there's a closer more coherent and tangible one?

[Carl-Richard]

9 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

So chill.

If you suppress emotion when engaging with genuine psychopathy, only to come off as more civil and perhaps more argumentatively effective on a virtual text editor machine, you are doing yourself a huge disservice for your general life. But yes, perhaps even better is to simply not engage.

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard