Thread: why it's not worth believing in claims of prophetic/precog dreams

It's easy to sit there and ridicule others when you don't share in their experiences. Many of you are lucid dreamers, how many of your friends have been skeptical of your claim? Have you ever been frustrated trying to tell someone you can lucid dream only having them tell you, you can't?

Until you actually experience it yourself [lucid dreaming], there was always uncertainty. Even if you share your lucid dreaming with your friends and family, there will always be skepticism. That is a healthy response for all the nonsense claims that are in this world. There is nothing worse then having these experiences: Lucid dreaming, precognitive dreaming, shared dreaming and then being barged with people telling you that you didn't. Or telling you that you can't or that you are crazy or delusional. Even lucid dreaming, which has been proven in laboratories and peer-reviewed since the early 1980's was met with fierce skepticism through the ages. It was considered paranormal and a delusion of the mind. Some skeptics still will argue this against your favor. I still meet them to this very day.

Let's put some rational context on this in relative terms to science. If Lucid Dreaming was only finally proven the 1980's, then did it not exist for humanity throughout the ages? Obviously not. Logically and rationally it has been around since the written record.

Even if you DO have Lucid Dreams, a lot of people do not, and probably will not when they die. Some people don't even dream at all. If dreaming or lucid dreaming is not real or true to them, does that automatically discredit your claims that you have? To them, you are probably just lying and making all of this up. Are you all lying about dreaming and lucid dreaming? Some people will argue that you are. Even all the significant dreams you write in journals can't be proven so they may as well be fabrications of your deluded mind. It's all subjective anecdotal claims and therefor easily dismissed and rejected by any of the arrogant logic skeptics have put in place to dismiss personal experience as having any value. By the skeptic decree, your experiences are not verifiable and valid, and you are just believing that you dreamed, not actually had dreamed. Therefor delusional.

Would you agree in this case? That you are lying about your dreams and lucid dreams? Try proving to me that you did without a reasonable doubt that you aren't just making it all up, and that it's total nonsense and rubbish. You are lying.

Fortunately, I don't feel that way. I too lucid dream regularly and it's awesome period. Sad for those who do not... but that is a them problem, not a me problem. My point is how arguments through ignorance and lack of experience frustrate those who have the experience. In the case of precognition, dreams that come true. It is very real. Like lucid dreaming, not everyone experiences it. It has been peer-reviewed and rejected many times over in our current history. Science has had evidence and that evidence simply has been brushed aside by the above arguments. Unlike Lucid Dreaming which now has a body of evidence to finally quell the skeptics, precognitive dreaming is still a harder problem to scientifically solve.

Just because science is still struggling with non-linear and non-locality within human consciousness, doesn't invalidate the experience for all the hundreds of thousands of people who have the experience. Just like lucid dreaming. Which could be considered a false claim experience. Perhaps the cloud clearing research will come in 2040, does that make precognitive dreaming only real past that date?

That said, you can be ignorant without the experience and say cruel and ignorant things about those that do; the same can be said about everything you have ever dreamed of... it's all unverifiable and therefor anecdotal and easily reduced to a false claim... or open your minds and see that like lucid dreaming precognitive dreaming has a long standing history in our culture.

Be less closed minded and ignorant and try to consider the reality of such claims. I do admit a lot of people don't understand it like I do, perhaps having had 23 years of experience with it that gives me an advantage over some of the more incoherent rants I have read. I've met researchers and scientists who have had precognition as well so hoping more convincing peer-reviewed evidence will emerge.

Just because precognitive dreaming hasn't yet found the definitive argument in peer-review although some will argue it has, that doesn't invalidate the reality of the phenomena one bit in my opinion. It will have it's time. Deja vu is just a taste, when you link it to a dream memory you are on your way... good luck Oneirologists!

Originally Posted by YAD

It's easy to sit there and ridicule others !

Let me raise your problem by an exponential factor.

Imagine a precognitive event over 4000 years old. That two individuals must be prepared for, and not by rote, but by understanding what these two must go through psychologically, or what man will go through himself. How close do you think anyone could come to understanding? These two individuals will go through . . . well, what is the point anyway?

When the very foundation of science itself must be placed on a standard, not even science is of much help today. The answers are in the future. One example I put with Geometry. The figure is the language, it is relatiologic. It must be pared with a tautologic for a reason. Yet look at all the different tautologics paired with it--if man knew the standard, they would know what they are doing is insane. You cannot say contraditory things no matter which language you construct. They don't know Truth.

Originally Posted by YAD

It's easy to sit there and ridicule others when you don't share in their experiences. Many of you are lucid dreamers, how many of your friends have been skeptical of your claim? Have you ever been frustrated trying to tell someone you can lucid dream only having them tell you, you can't?

My question is: How can someone expect to create a mental model of "reality", by which to base their understanding of how the universe works, if one chooses to give the benefit of doubt to any wild claim that they hear?

I don't outright deny the possibility of anything paranormal. As of this point, there isn't much that I have a steadfast belief in - in that area - but even though I can argue against them, I do remain open-minded. But - according to your logic - what is the difference between believing someone who says they can share dreams, or believing someone who says they can fly? Or that they can turn into their spirit animal, in waking life, sometimes? I mean, should we just "believe" any and every, marginally common, supernatural claim, just because that person "might be telling the truth" - by some, practically nonexistent, stretch of possibility? Or are we entitled to state our opinions on whether or not such phenomena are possible?

Yes, lucid dreaming was (and is) a long-debated topic. As you said, there are people who still don't believe it exists. And you know what? As annoying as it may be, those people are entitled to state their opinions, whenever they feel like it. The difference is that they can be informed, and presented with countless documents and references that prove, with scientific certainty, that lucid dreaming is a real and obtainable skill. Shared dreaming, and the like, simply does not have this backbone of proof. The best you can get, with such phenomena, are sketchy accounts of "I had this dream about this huge banquet hall. It was a really detailed dream. And then, a year later, I walked into this place and it was the exact same hall. I remember it right down to every single detail!" (An actual account of a precog. dream, that I was told by a friend, about a week ago.) I mean, it's all fine and good, but the most you will get out of me is a nod of acknowledgment, and a diplomatic declaration of "that's cool."

...and that's only if I don't feel like offering my actual opinion. Sometimes I'd rather censor myself than get into a huge "my beliefs vs. your beliefs" debate.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

My question is: How can someone expect to create a mental model of "reality", by which to base their understanding of how the universe works, if one chooses to give the benefit of doubt to any wild claim that they hear?.

Pardon the intrusion. Listen to what I have always said.
1 The events are not precognitive. They fall into the definition of language. Language is for the purpose of manipulating material difference through time. On the primitive level, to effect the will of a sentient.

2. Man does not know the foundation of language and he is thinking and speaking a great deal of gibberish. His invention of logic system after logic system to try to keep from contradicting himselft is pure insanity. He must start from the first principles.

3 The mind of man is still primitive. It will take time--but as YAD said, you must first learn to listen. Or in the metaphor of what Christ was about, learn to "see". Perception determines conception, conception determines will. You see, the foundation of what Christ did was put into the form of a question in the front of the book "What did God say?" This teaching of man to learn judgment, through an understanding of langhuage has been going on for thousands of years with man. But, you cannot teach a parrot to think.

You do not create a model of reality, in reality you model creation.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Pardon the intrusion. Listen to what I have always said.
1 The events are not precognitive. They fall into the definition of language. Language is for the purpose of manipulating material difference through time. On the primitive level, to effect the will of a sentient.

2. Man does not know the foundation of language and he is thinking and speaking a great deal of gibberish. His invention of logic system after logic system to try to keep from contradicting himselft is pure insanity. He must start from the first principles.

3 The mind of man is still primitive. It will take time--but as YAD said, you must first learn to listen. Or in the metaphor of what Christ was about, learn to "see". Perception determines conception, conception determines will. You see, the foundation of what Christ did was put into the form of a question in the front of the book "What did God say?" This teaching of man to learn judgment, through an understanding of langhuage has been going on for thousands of years with man. But, you cannot teach a parrot to think.

You do not create a model of reality, in reality you model creation.

I'm sorry philosopher, but it's no secret that I can't understand a thing you say (or, more specifically, how what I can discern as your point is relative to the topic). I'm not trying to be rude or anything, truly. I'm far from an idiot, and my reading comprehension is comfortably above par, but your posts read like Shakespearean judicial papers.

I had not implied that the dreams were precognitive - which is why I'm wondering why that was your first point. My position is that there are many people who do believe that their dreams are precognitive, and that there is nothing inherently malicious about refuting their claims, until such an outlandish phenomenon has been proven to the disbeliever.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm sorry philosopher, but it's no secret that I can't understand a thing you say (or, more specifically, how what I can discern as your point is relative to the topic). I'm not trying to be rude or anything, truly. I'm far from an idiot, and my reading comprehension is comfortably above par, but your posts read like Shakespearean judicial papers.

haha exactly, I too have some difficulty with this but I'll give it a shot

1 The events are not precognitive. They fall into the definition of language.

you claim that the events in (your) dreams are language?
Language:
a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols.
b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words.
c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.
language - definition of language by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

would it be more accurate to say that your dreams are data/information? - that we could at least agree on. whether that information is of any use is another matter.

Language is for the purpose of manipulating material difference through time. On the primitive level, to effect the will of a sentient.

No. Look at the above dictionary definition.
By your definition I could use language for telekinisis or to create earthquakes by chanting stuff or saying "Earthquake appear!"

also what is "material difference that changes through time" - give an example

2. Man does not know the foundation of language

the "foundation" of language - do you mean the origin of language?

and he is thinking and speaking a great deal of gibberish.

um, no. - perhaps you are.

His invention of logic system after logic system to try to keep from contradicting himselft is pure insanity.

do you mean The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning? that system seems ok to me
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/logic

He must start from the first principles.

what first principles?

Seems whenever I answer you you respond not by answering each of my points as I did to yours but instead you go on on another rant and flood us with Shakespeare all over again



--------------------------------------------

And now to answer YAD (regarding lucid dreaming/precog dreams/paranormal phenomena)

Be less closed minded and ignorant and try to consider the reality of such claims. I do admit a lot of people don't understand it like I do, perhaps having had 23 years of experience with it that gives me an advantage over some of the more incoherent rants I have read. I've met researchers and scientists who have had precognition as well so hoping more convincing peer-reviewed evidence will emerge.

Just because precognitive dreaming hasn't yet found the definitive argument in peer-review although some will argue it has, that doesn't invalidate the reality of the phenomena one bit in my opinion. It will have it's time. Deja vu is just a taste, when you link it to a dream memory you are on your way... good luck Oneirologists!

there is a good saying, "it's good to be open minded, but not to the point that your brain falls out "

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A lucid dream is a chemical phenomena/process inside the mind and is limited to the brain. A precog dream/OBE/etc is "paranormal". lucid dreams, while considered "weird" by outsiders, are not supernatural.

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

there is a good saying, "it's good to be open minded, but not to the point that your brain falls out "

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A lucid dream is a chemical phenomena/process inside the mind and is limited to the brain. A precog dream/OBE/etc is "paranormal". lucid dreams, while considered "weird" by outsiders, are not supernatural.

i don't think YAD's argument was trying to convince anyone here that precognitive dreams exist. He was trying to make the point that is it unfair to ridicule someone for producing evidence from their own subjective experiences. You can be open and still not believe in something, but what you've done here is tried to attack the claims of someone else.

Just as people here have presented their subjective experiences as evidence for precognitive dreaming, you have presented your own opinions as evidence against it. You're trying to fight someone with the same tools.

Originally Posted by adrift

i don't think YAD's argument was trying to convince anyone here that precognitive dreams exist. He was trying to make the point that is it unfair to ridicule someone for producing evidence from their own subjective experiences. You can be open and still not believe in something, but what you've done here is tried to attack the claims of someone else.

Just as people here have presented their subjective experiences as evidence for precognitive dreaming, you have presented your own opinions as evidence against it. You're trying to fight someone with the same tools.

ahah. you use words like "ridicule" and "attack". indeed I just gave critical observations - attack would imply using bad words or simply calling them silly. And there is a big difference between those.

is it unfair to ridicule someone for producing evidence from their own subjective experiences.

ridicule yes. critisize no. subjective experiences are not evidence.
DOLHENTY ARCHIVE: Objective Experiences and Subjective Experiences

And while I have no problem with people believing whatever they want, which they are free to do, I will unapologeticaly criticize and "ridicule" - if that is what it appears like to you, for trying to convince me (the original poster) that their experiences are "evidence" and "scientific". And even more if they say stuff like "it is beyond our understanding so you must take my word for it" - in that case I'll pull no punches.

You're trying to fight someone with the same tools.

Critical thinking VS subjective experience = NOT the same tools

but what you've done here is tried to attack the claims of someone else.

and what do you think is wrong with "attacking" claims of someone else? If a claim cannot stand up under scrutiny it SHOULD be challenged until there is good evidence that it is true or until the claim goes away.