My dreams are about future real life events?

[Carl-Richard]

I just want to show how ridiculous that PsychedSubstance dream was. I will also elaborate that I literally was inside his house in the dream and I got the sense he got kicked out, and then we sat on one of those big concrete stairs-like things in a city and he looked really lost for words staring down and into the air and I asked him "so, what now?".

Imagine we're in a city sitting at a café near the city square and I say for example that "within seven seconds",

1. "Derek from More Plates More Dates will walk up in front of us and get robbed at gunpoint".

2. "Oliver Tree will crash a helicopter into the city square".

3. "Michael Jackson's son will arrive and start dancing to 'Beat It' while a big dancing crew emerges in a flash mob".

Then that is exactly what happens. What would you think then? Just a coincidence? Or did I maybe have a glimpse into the future?

The way I constructed those examples is that they involve a semi-famous person that engage in an action they have most likely never done before, within a short time frame of me predicting/conceiving of it (i.e. analogous to the PsychedSubstance dream event).

Edited Wednesday at 01:11 PM by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

20 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just want to show how ridiculous that PsychedSubstance dream was. I will also elaborate that I literally was inside his house in the dream and I got the sense he got kicked out, and then we sat on one of those big concrete stairs-like things in a city and he looked really lost for words staring down and into the air and I asked him "so, what now?".

Imagine we're in a city sitting at a cafe near the city square and I say for example that "within seven seconds",

1. "Derek from More Plates More Dates will walk up in front of us and get robbed at gunpoint".

2. "Oliver Tree will crash a helicopter into the city square".

3. "Michael Jackson's son will arrive and start dancing to "Beat It" while a big dancing crew emerges in a flash mob".

Then that is exactly what happens. What would you think then? Just a coincidence? Or did I maybe have a glimpse into the future?

The way I constructed those examples is that they involve a semi-famous person that engage in an action they have most likely never done before, within a short time frame of me predicting it (i.e. analogous to the PsychedSubstance dream event).

The funny thing is that is what seems to be happening to me lately without doing the "within seven seconds" part.

It's so weird.  Like whatever I subconsciously am aware that could happen will.

Telepathy?

[Carl-Richard]

21 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

The funny thing is that is what seems to be happening to me lately without doing the "within seven seconds" part.

It's so weird.  Like whatever I subconsciously am aware that could happen will.

Telepathy?

You'd have to give an example.

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

You'd have to give an example.

Man just anything at this point.  Um.  It just becomes so fucking scripted.  That''s what we had to watch out for when this whole tihng started.  That it wouldn't be scripted. But now for me it is on a daily.

[Carl-Richard]

I just thought about the time I met my brother walking towards me on a road to a store and he said his friend had died, 10 or so years ago (I was really high at the time and answered something like "shit, is it going to be in the news?" without stopping to ask how he was doing; completely retard zoinked out). 

I remember before meeting him while I was walking down the driveway outside the house, I had this really weird feeling, like something was fucked with reality that day. Like literally the way reality "looked" (my visual field) was different, the general vibe, the baseline feeling of reality, was different somehow. His friend lived probably only about a quarter mile away or less from our house.

Edited Wednesday at 05:33 PM by Carl-Richard

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I just thought about the time I met my brother walking towards me on a road to a store and he said his friend had died, 10 or so years ago (I was really high at the time and answered something like "shit, is it going to be in the news?" without stopping to ask how he was doing; completely retard zoinked out). 

I remember before meeting him while I was walking down the driveway outside the house, I had this really weird feeling, like something was fucked with reality that day. Like literally the way really "looked" (my visual field) was different, the general vibe, the baseline feeling of reality, was different somehow. His friend lived probably only about a quarter mile away or less from our house.

The bible got a few things right.  But only a few.  It's real.  IT really is.  And everything has been decided.  How we live is up to us.

Edited Wednesday at 05:34 PM by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

These upcoming experiments might be relevant for the discussion:

 

From https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/8qvgy_v2 :

Quote

5.2. Multiple-subject experiments.

Whereas single-subject experiments test for external constraint on an individual experience, multi-subject paradigms test for shared structure across experiences.

In these experiments, multiple subjects (isolated from one another) undergo DMT sessions under identical conditions. Their reports are later analyzed for correlations, shared features, or structured correspondences beyond what would be expected by chance. The aim is not to establish identical experiences, but to test whether independent subjects exhibit non-trivial convergence in reported entities, environments, or informational content. Again, selective recruiting would likely improve the chances of success:

Couples who claim to have shared experiences, particularly if it involves interacting with the same entity, might be recruited to test for correlations between individual experiences. Such experimental set ups might include information deposit and retrieval, in which one of the subjects deposits information into the DMT space, such as by communicating a randomly generated word or multiple-digit integer to an entity, which is subsequently retrieved from the entity by the other subject.

As with single-subject paradigms, methodological safeguards such as blinding, standardized reporting frameworks, and preregistered analysis criteria are essential.

Across all paradigms, careful attention must be paid to expectation effects, experimenter bias, and the interpretive flexibility of retrospective reports. Null results are informative, and positive results would require cautious interpretation. The goal of these proposed programs is not to presuppose any particular metaphysical conclusion, but to clarify which features of DMT experiences can be systematically constrained, correlated, or reproduced, and which cannot.

 

Edited Thursday at 05:41 PM by Carl-Richard

[Sugarcoat]

On 2026-08-09 at 9:41 AM, Jirh said:

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?

 

All those apply, go hand in hand, but how i'm thinking of the questions in my mind might be too far from how you're thinking of it, hence misunderstandings there. Regarding the second question I'd say it's more so the opposite way, more openness makes altered perception more possible. 

And it's predominantly internally "based", your state will determine what you connect to externally, what you're able to percieve and access too. But ofc anyone can have some "woo woo" experience but less likely, based on observations.

On 2026-08-09 at 9:41 AM, Jirh said:

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.

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

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?

Theres variety of experiences, Im not talking about "random hallucinations", which from the very little I've heard about schizophrenia seems to be big part of it. 

Having deeper and more subtle insights, yes I recognize those terms as I've use them myself in this regard too. Being able to have them depends on your internal state too. 

I didn't "reach" for anything I just wrote where such thought seemed to be inspired from for me.

[Carl-Richard]

Tom Campbell's code debugging story:

Quote

And one day, I was sitting there in a meditation, and then I started thinking about the software I was writing. Back in those days, now, those days are in the middle of the late '60s. In those days, the computer was one computer for a whole university, and it took up probably 10,000 square feet, and it was probably about 100th as powerful as the one that's in your cell phone. There were no debug programs.

There was nothing. You put in your run, and they send it back with a message that says it bombed. That's all the outputs you got. Maybe you'd get part of a print out if it got to some of your print statements. So That was back in the old days when working with a computer was a lot more problematic than it is then. So I was just thinking about it. I had some things bombed and didn't know why, and I was searching through my card deck, if you can think back that far when computers were fed by punch cards. And it was really hard to debug because some of the problems weren't even real problems with your code, but the hole was a little off-center. The card punches were all mechanical things, and they wore out, and they had cams and gears and stuff, and they could punch off a little off-center, and the machine would throw it out. And all you'd get is a message that says, your job didn't run. It bombed. So I started thinking about it, and when I did, I saw in my mind, I saw this roll just like it was coming off a roll.

And there was my programs coming down there. And then I saw one that was red. Most of them were black on white, like you'd expect. It's like looking at a printout. And it would go I'd see my card deck and I see one with red and I'd stop it and I'd look at it and noted it. And then I'd find the next one. I found three or four of them. And then next time I got back in the lab, I looked at those cards and I found errors on them. And I said, Holy shit, what's going on? Now, I'm a young 26-year-old physicist, and in my mind, reality Reality can be defined in an operational state. If you can operate on it, if you can do something with it, if you can interact with it, then it's real. If you can't, it's not. And that's, of course, a materialist viewpoint. That material stuff is real. Stuff that's not material is either not real or irrelevant because you can't interact with it. So what's the point? So when I got that, that startled me, and I started to play with it more. And I found some errors that indeed were card punch errors.

And I thought, That's not even errors in code. How do I know that that card has a punch error? Because it's very hard to tell when you look at it, they all look fine. You can't tell something that's a 10th of a millimeter out of line. But I realized, jeez, there's a whole another part of reality that has to do with consciousness that I don't know anything about. I'm a physicist. Physicists model reality. That's what they do. Here I was, right in my face, there's another part to reality that's consciousness-centered.

https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/the-joe-rogan-experience/2259-thomas-campbell

The epicycle hypothesis for materialism here is "he did actually view the defective cards at one point and he did see the microscopic 10th of a millimeter defects subconsciously and then he could access it in his memory during meditation later", i.e. extremely accurate and subtle perception and memory. Meanwhile in another scenario, materialists will doubt whether you actually remembered the general events of a dream correct and that you created fake memories. It becomes noticeable that you might be dealing with epicycles / ad hoc hypotheses when they start to look contradictory.

Edited 51 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Human Mint]

I had a dream about a giant spider eating a bee. Then I saw a picture of a spider eating a bee on Instagram.

[Carl-Richard]

10 hours ago, Human Mint said:

I had a dream about a giant spider eating a bee. Then I saw a picture of a spider eating a bee on Instagram.

Who knows what that could be. But what would be truly impressive is if you saw that exact spider eating that exact bee in your dream at the exact same time as it was happening in real life.

[Carl-Richard]

 

Bernardo says the statistical significance they use at CERN to claim they have found a new particle, when those same kinds of scientists read psi research, they dismiss the same statistical significance with ironically the same thinking as "law of big numbers" ("in randomness you can find any pattern"). These are again epicycle 'hypotheses', clearly bogus defenses that are contradictory with their very own standards of determining what is real.

[Carl-Richard]

Not long ago I was on a ferry in the lounge and I opened a thin medicine-blue plastic bag I had gotten from somebody I was travelling with to get a fruit, and as I started eating it, I started smelling sunscreen, and then I started tasting it too.

So I smelled inside the bag and it smelled of sunscreen, so I thought the plastic bag must have contained a sunscreen bottle at some point and that it spilled. So I told them about this and they were like "no, we smell it too, somebody who smells like sunscreen just entered the room we're sitting in". And then I smelled the plastic bag again and then the air and it all made sense.

I had so many converging lines of sensory input and evidence, the timing, etc., such a plausible story, that I was completely convinced that there was sunscreen inside the plastic bag, but the sunscreen was instead just in the air.

The lesson here again is we ground our reality in exactly these kinds of criteria: convergence of senses and other evidence, timing, "other people's reports / their sensory inputs" (which persuaded me in the other direction again), etc. And of course, we can be wrong about our conviction even if it feels real. But this isn't limited to psychic phenomena, obviously. You can be wrong about what you think is physical reality. Your belief in "the physical" doesn't save you from being wrong.

Edited 46 minutes ago by Carl-Richard

[Human Mint]

28 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Not long ago I was on a ferry in the lounge and I opened a thin medicine-blue plastic bag I had gotten from somebody I was travelling with to get a fruit, and as I started eating it, I started smelling sunscreen, and then I started tasting it too.

So I smelled inside the bag and it smelled of sunscreen, so I thought the plastic bag must have contained a sunscreen bottle at some point and that it spilled. So I told them about this and they were like "no, we smell it too, somebody who smells like sunscreen just entered the room we're sitting in". And then I smelled the plastic bag again and then the air and it all made sense.

I had so many converging lines of sensory input and evidence, the timing, etc., such a plausible story, that I was completely convinced that there was sunscreen inside the plastic bag, but the sunscreen was instead just in the air.

The lesson here again is we ground our reality in exactly these kinds of criteria: convergence of senses and other evidence, timing, etc. And of course, we can be wrong about our conviction even if it feels real. But this isn't limited to psychic convictions, obviously. You can be wrong about what you think is physical reality. Your belief in "the physical" doesn't save you from being wrong.

A dog wouldn't fall for that one.

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

A dog wouldn't fall for that one.

A dog (probably) wouldn't be eating fruit from a medicine-blue plastic bag either 🐶

[Inliytened1]

On 8/10/2026 at 7:03 PM, kavaris said:

Im diagnosed w/ schizophrenia. i havent shared it too much, in order to not bring too many confusing elements into an otherwise complex hierarchy of things we are talking about, and the elements that perhaps have to be considered high priority shipments so to speak... and such.

My sister is shizophrenic.  Mental illness runs in my family, i was just lucky enough to ONLY get OCD.  Anyways - my take is that the schizophrenic isn't really sick - they may see figures that aren't in "reality" but since reality is imaginary, they are just seeing things outside the constructed dream.  It's glitches in the matrix, if you will.. Would you concur? Also, would it reveal other things about "the matrix"?  Tell us more.

[Inliytened1]

On 8/16/2026 at 5:46 AM, Carl-Richard said:

Tom Campbell's code debugging story:

https://podcasts.happyscribe.com/the-joe-rogan-experience/2259-thomas-campbell

The epicycle hypothesis for materialism here is "he did actually view the defective cards at one point and he did see the microscopic 10th of a millimeter defects subconsciously and then he could access it in his memory during meditation later". i.e. extremely accurate and subtle perception and memory. Meanwhile in another scenario, materialists will doubt whether you actually remembered the general events of a dream correct and that you created fake memories. It becomes noticeable that you might be dealing with epicycles / ad hoc hypotheses when they start to look contradictory.

It is really futile to argue with a materialist.  Their mind is not open to other possibilities.

[Heaven]

Can you see stock prices in the future?

I know it’s selfish but I really need to know 

[Inliytened1]

19 minutes ago, Heaven said:

Can you see stock prices in the future?

I know it’s selfish but I really need to know 

If you have selfish goals it will not come to fruition.  God is selflessness.  You will learn that in time.

Edited 1 hour ago by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Heaven said:

Can you see stock prices in the future?

I know it’s selfish but I really need to know 

My guy, I didn't order these dreams. And the dreams were again seemingly or likely temporally parallel to the real life events, so I was not getting an edge on anybody else in that sense (the edge was "spatial").

 

50 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

If you have selfish goals it will not come to fruition.  God is selflessness.  You will learn that in time.

There is an idea that the ego and also sensory input (and the latter gets virtually shut off in dreams) closes one off to psychic effects. When you remove the filtering on reality (be it the ego or sensory inputs), or the noise/distractions, you start to become susceptible to such influences.

Edited 44 minutes ago by Carl-Richard