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

They almost always seem to be of a very vague/personal nature, usually to do with relationships, changes in one's life and actions of personal acquaintances.

http://anomalyradio.com/images/PRECOG.JPG

changes - I meet this a lot - people often claim that their dreams predicted misfortune/fortune/a great change in their lives, but the nature and time scale is usually very vague. Change is a normal part of life - I can predict that someone will go through "great changes" some time future - that doesn't make me a precog. Also the same applies for some "great event" that may happen some time in the future. If the premonitions are more specific it is because people, even before the dream have some information that "it may come sometime".

relationships - people often do this, but since we have basically simplified models/simulations of other people in out minds it is only natural to be able to sometimes predict their actions (example - you have a friend that is usually frustrated - you predict that he will lash out)


Why is it, that in days/weeks before worldwide events like september 11 or Michel Jacksons death the forums were not flooded with people predicting this stuff? why is it that no one ever won a lottery or in the stock market by using precog dreaming? Indeed, the James Randi foundation offers 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate anything supernatural - so far it has gone unclaimed. seems that these claims are very slippery and evaporate when scrutinized.

I agree!

Well obviously, and it seems everyone but the fringe groups agree. Trust me, if precognition was possible it would be a huge deal.

There's really no point in arguing logic to these people. The best thing I've found is just to heard them all over to the Beyond Dreaming section.

the idea of precog dreams is the same as all kinds of supposed precog
a psychic told my gramma that she was going to live in a house on a hill, so she bought a house on a hill, and said that the psychic had been right. she didn't accept that she had made the psychic right by buying the house, and that she could just have easily bought a house with a flat lawn and proved her wrong

like SystemsLock said, they're just hard to argue with, even when logic is clearly on your side =P

I agree with all of the above. It seems that if people want to believe in something, they do and there's nothing that can keep them from it.

Perception determines conception, conception determines will.

In other words, belief always stems from direct experience, language is used to guide human action through time. Now, linguistic expression is a craft, one might liken it to map making. Some maps are of things real, and some imaginary. So, one cannot claim that belief stems from the maps, from the language, from what is claimed.

Some maps are treasure maps, some are not even good enough to roll a smoke with.

And since the map is not the territory, (general semantics) the language is not the real. However, we do use maps to effect how we go from place to place. Secondly, because there are very few good map makers, don't mean the country they describe is fictional.

I have seen things, some of no consequence, some very terrible that have come to pass.

Right now my whole life seems to be a prophecy unfolding and I don't like it one bit.

However, it would be pointless to say much on it, just like it is pointless to tell a blind man about the color of a flower.

What is true, and the whole point of it is that all language is devised to aid the mind in doing its job, to effect human behavior in order to maintain and promote our life. All language, its most valid use, if for the sole effect of predicting the results of human behavior such that that behavior maintains and promotes our life. I. E. logic has the same definition as prophecy, or seeing into the future.

So, to say that something in the Universe can not do the same thing as any sentient mind can, using mankind, is as dumb as a box of rocks.

Nah I disagree, for example, you are assuming the ones who claim they have experienced it, are capable of doing it at will and of any event they wish, you are also assuming that somehow it will show up on a DJ, if you are going to discredit them, at least be logical about it <.<

And no, I'm not a believer, but the way this is presented isn't really logical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Perception determines conception, conception determines will.

In other words, belief always stems from direct experience, language is used to guide human action through time. Now, linguistic expression is a craft, one might liken it to map making. Some maps are of things real, and some imaginary. So, one cannot claim that belief stems from the maps, from the language, from what is claimed.

Some maps are treasure maps, some are not even good enough to roll a smoke with.

And since the map is not the territory, (general semantics) the language is not the real. However, we do use maps to effect how we go from place to place. Secondly, because there are very few good map makers, don't mean the country they describe is fictional.

I have seen things, some of no consequence, some very terrible that have come to pass.

Right now my whole life seems to be a prophecy unfolding and I don't like it one bit.

However, it would be pointless to say much on it, just like it is pointless to tell a blind man about the color of a flower.

What is true, and the whole point of it is that all language is devised to aid the mind in doing its job, to effect human behavior in order to maintain and promote our life. All language, its most valid use, if for the sole effect of predicting the results of human behavior such that that behavior maintains and promotes our life. I. E. logic has the same definition as prophecy, or seeing into the future.

So, to say that something in the Universe can not do the same thing as any sentient mind can, using mankind, is as dumb as a box of rocks.

---

I agree with you on the function of language and the "because there are very few good map makers, don't mean the country they describe is fictional." part.

But I don't quite see how you get to the point that logic has the same definition as prophecy. As far as I know, logic is based on things that we 'know' (bear with me here, let's not start a discussion on how we can't 'know' anything, I hope you see my point), and prophecies are statements or messages on future events without having any knowledge of it beforehand. If we do have knowledge on it, I would call it a prediction. We can predict human behaviour because we have gained a certain amount of knowledge on it over the years. I do think there is a distinct difference between this kind of prediction and say, predicting a natural disaster or the coming of a messiah..

If I interpreted your post wrong, please correct me.

Quote:

---

linguistic expression is a craft, one might liken it to map making

---

both expressing yourself linguistically and map making are ways of transmitting information - ok. As for the craft bit then sure - you need to be skilled in the language or in map making to transmit information correctly, intelligibly or with minimal errors.

Quote:

---

Some maps are treasure maps, some are not even good enough to roll a smoke with.

---

sure. few use the second kind anymore with the whole google earth n stuff.

Quote:

---

And since the map is not the territory, (general semantics) the language is not the real. However, we do use maps to effect how we go from place to place.

---

both maps and language are representations and not the actual thing, sure.

Quote:

---

Secondly, because there are very few good map makers, don't mean the country they describe is fictional.

---

Ahh, and here I disagree. I know Japan exists not because I have faith in "a few good map makers", but because there are multiple sources that check each others result. if Japan was a hoax then maybe chine or russia would go like "hmm we don't see it". That's why we don't trust maps that have Atlantis on them.

Quote:

---

I have seen things, some of no consequence, some very terrible that have come to pass.

Right now my whole life seems to be a prophecy unfolding and I don't like it one bit.

However, it would be pointless to say much on it, just like it is pointless to tell a blind man about the color of a flow

---

now you give us general vague information "terrible things come to pass" - o..k. I can predict such stuff as well - in my life I'll probably catch some illness, my parents will someday die and so will I. I can also predict that there will be wars, earthquakes, etc in the future. That doesn't make me a prophet.

Quote:

---

However, it would be pointless to say much on it, just like it is pointless to tell a blind man about the color of a flower.

---

why- cause I might dissect it and call you on it?

Quote:

---

What is true, and the whole point of it is that all language is devised to aid the mind in doing its job, to effect human behavior in order to maintain and promote our life.

---

sure - though "devised" is too strong a term - languages slowly evolved as did parts in our brains responsible for handling them.

Quote:

---

I. E. logic has the same definition as prophecy, or seeing into the future.

---

Logic is the use of critical thinking

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.
logic - definition of logic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Prophecy the ability (claim) to foretell the future. How you can equate the two is beyond me.

Quote:

---

So, to say that something in the Universe can not do the same thing as any sentient mind can, using mankind, is as dumb as a box of rocks.

---

here I'm lost. what in the universe? maybe I am as dumb as a box of rocks then :)

The purpose of the human mind is to manipulate our life over time. It does this via language.

With certain givens, such and such results. The future does not exist. When we learn of things that do come to pass, then it is because, even though we do not understand it as a language, it is a language. It is an expression of sentience.

And, speaking of prophecy. Let me example something, something given a long time ago. It was written that no one could solve for the name of the Beast 666, only one man in the future of man.

The solution is what the function of the mind is itself.

666, One must use a standard. That is a given, standard numeration of Hebrew. 400, 200, 60, 6.
No such word. However, 400 is the conversive ending of words, turning the past into the future and the future into the past.

Hint 1 turn them around.
Hint 2 every image used to describe the beast was also used to describe God in one place in the OT. Relationshp of God to Man, Image.
Turn them around.
Hint 3. Let him who has wisdom count. . . put them in counting sequence. i.e. turn them around.
Hint 4. He shall make an image . . . once more turn them around.

To shutter (regulate the comming and going) so as to turn the past into the future and bring the future to pass.

There is a prophecy fulfilled for you. Hello. Language, whose use is to regulate behavior through time, is what sentient beings do. And why, it is the only way written to determine if what ever God is, does in fact exist.

This does not mean that it validates man's mythology. Man's understanding is growing over time. I hope you can understand what I just did is a little more terrible than a common cold. What is written about man's understanding being shown to be really dumb shit, will happen--because man does not yet understand language.

Quote:

---

The purpose of the human mind is to manipulate our life over time. It does this via language.

---

maybe you mean the function? Purpose sounds too much like the mind was designed/given a purpose by someone. The evolutionary function/purpose is to give the person enough intellignence/motor control to have enough to eat and procreate. We can of course go beyond that and make our lives more meaningful :)

Quote:

---

With certain givens, such and such results. The future does not exist. When we learn of things that do come to pass, then it is because, even though we do not understand it as a language, it is a language. It is an expression of sentience.

---

?????????? can you rephrase that I don't understand. how can the future not exist?

Quote:

---

And, speaking of prophecy. Let me example something, something given a long time ago. It was written that no one could solve for the name of the Beast 666, only one man in the future of man.

The solution is what the function of the mind is itself.

666, One must use a standard. That is a given, standard numeration of Hebrew. 400, 200, 60, 6.
No such word. However, 400 is the conversive ending of words, turning the past into the future and the future into the past.

Hint 1 turn them around.
Hint 2 every image used to describe the beast was also used to describe God in one place in the OT. Relationshp of God to Man, Image.
Turn them around.
Hint 3. Let him who has wisdom count. . . put them in counting sequence. i.e. turn them around.
Hint 4. He shall make an image . . . once more turn them around.

To shutter (regulate the comming and going) so as to turn the past into the future and bring the future to pass.

There is a prophecy fulfilled for you. Hello. Language, whose use is to regulate behavior through time, is what sentient beings do. And why, it is the only way written to determine if what ever God is, does in fact exist.

---

so what did this prophecy reveal? seems what they did is they took 666 and manipulated the numbers long enough till they came up with something.

Quote:

---

Man's understanding is growing over time. I hope you can understand what I just did is a little more terrible than a common cold. What is written about man's understanding being shown to be really dumb shit, will happen--because man does not yet understand language.

---

ok, since you are talking about the bible let's have a look: if the god of the christian mythology wanted to reveal something to us, and did it in a "language we do not understand" - it's like having a schoolteacher teaching 1st graders in a foreign language - what intelligent being would do that?

Biological function is purpose. A = A a thing is not different from itself.

Future not exist? Is is not the same as will be.

The prophecy was to be fulfilled at a particular time in history, a time when lucid dreaming returned to man. Lucid dreamings is a school. A very difficult school. Not many will ever get far in it or understand.

Telepathy is in its primitive stages I believe in man.

Manipulate the numbers???? What does standard mean? That there is one, and only one sequence. Or don't you understand the principles of the original Hebrew numbering system? I did not say gematry, which is a play toy.

Even to move a muscle, your mind is using past experience to predict future behavior. All that is changing is how far into the future the mind can forcast. We develope languages to this end. And, since the mind is not different from the mind, it should have been guessed that dreams have something to do with language.

Quote:

---

Biological function is purpose. A = A a thing is not different from itself.

---

ok

Quote:

---

Future not exist? Is is not the same as will be.

---

sorry for being so slow - can you re-explain this thought I feel like you've lost me.

Quote:

---

The prophecy was to be fulfilled at a particular time in history, a time when lucid dreaming returned to man. Lucid dreamings is a school. A very difficult school. Not many will ever get far in it or understand.

---

what prophecy?

Quote:

---

Manipulate the numbers???? What does standard mean? That there is one, and only one sequence. Or don't you understand the principles of the original Hebrew numbering system? I did not say gematry, which is a play toy.

---

ok, what did those numbers predict?

Quote:

---

since the mind is not different from the mind

---

no disagreement there

Quote:

---

, it should have been guessed that dreams have something to do with language.

---

mm - languages appear in dreams, so does visual imagery and sound and feeling - dreams have something to do with those too

The entire dream is a langauge. You are being psychologically "adjusted."

When you learn to converse in it, you will have to learn the rudiments of every language, the founding principles. Learn how to say what you see. How to ask questions, etc. Your every thought, every reaction is known.

That is what it means to be in the Garden of God. The human race is under intelligent guidence, even though it is unaware of it.

It means that truth and understanding is being grown, ie. psychological development of the species man.

Perhaps some day man will mature enought to help other worlds develop. Who knows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

sorry for being so slow - can you re-explain this thought I feel like you've lost me.

---

I think he means that because the future is yet to arrive, it does not exist yet. It will be here, but is not here now (the only thing that is here now is the present), so the future itself does at this point not exist. At the point that it exists, say one minute from now, or one day from now, we call it the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bowie

I think he means that because the future is yet to arrive, it does not exist yet. It will be here, but is not here now (the only thing that is here now is the present), so the future itself does at this point not exist. At the point that it exists, say one minute from now, or one day from now, we call it the present.

---

ahh okey - sure, that sounds reasonable

Okay Philosopher8659, I've had enough out of you.

You're not making sense and all I've seen you do is preach in random topics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SystemsLock

Okay Philosopher8659, I've had enough out of you.

You're not making sense and all I've seen you do is preach in random topics.

---

Tell you what. I have posted The Delian Quest on the Archive, Each problem is wirtten up using mathcad, - live documents. Now it stands to reason that if I am prone to not making sense, take a look at it and tell me how it is I am only lucid using Geometry, and Algebra, to solve problems never solved before, but I am way to stupid to use English.

One of us certainly has had no practice in following a chain of reasoing step by step.

Oh, and by the way, One of the first problems I solved to do the work was to generalize the Pythagorean Theorem to cover all triangles. (who needs trig when you can do that?) See if you can follow even that. Also notice there is no trig, or anything else but a simple parallel between algebra and the figure, something Descarts was trying to do, but failed. .

Both Trig and Cartesian Coordinates and the original Common grammar systems where all used to describe Geometry, three languages to cover one, when I did all my work, 1 to 1. And all of it valided by MathCad.

And why is it, when I have posted years of proof of my ability, you think you have accomplished something using only your mouth like a bar room bum? Becuase you care nothing about truth, or equality, but only your vanity.

I have had enough of your stupidity and arrogance. So piss off.

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!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Since noone bothers to take the time to read through your posts, Philosopher, why do you keep posting?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

2. Man does not know the foundation of language

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

um, no. - perhaps you are.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Critical thinking VS subjective experience = NOT the same tools

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

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.

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.

[...]

Critical thinking VS subjective experience = NOT the same tools

---

but you're not critically thinking, you're only stating that precognitive dreaming isn't possible because there isn't enough scientific evidence for it. it would also be true that there isn't scientific evidence disproving it either. if you want to take this on the stance of scientific evidence, you can't do either.. because attempts at researching precognitive dreaming are shut down.

and i do think your OP is an attack. there was another thread already made concerning precognitive dreaming and you already stated your opinion on the matter, but you went further to make another thread to continue your disapproval. that's rather uncalled for.

going back on the idea of scientific evidence, i think it's rather insulting to others that you only rely on scientific research when you handle new ideas. no one, except you, is trying to prove anything by bringing up a discussion of precognitive dreaming. furthermore, your reliance on specific methods of research is limiting and is only one point of view.

i agree with you about standing up to false claims. but noone here can prove/disprove precognitive dreaming. attacking others and supporting your own point of view with weak arguments is not getting us closer to the truth.

Quote:

---

you're only stating that precognitive dreaming isn't possible because there isn't enough scientific evidence for it.

---

ahh, and here you're putting words in my mouth. I never stated that "precog dreaming is impossible" - I said it's not worth believing it at this point due to lack of good evidence

Quote:

---

it would also be true that there isn't scientific evidence disproving it either. if you want to take this on the stance of scientific evidence, you can't do either.. because attempts at researching precognitive dreaming are shut down.

---

as above. Also, since I'm not the one trying to prove/disprove anything, the burden of proof falls on those who claim that precog dreaming is possible, not on me.

Quote:

---

and i do think your OP is an attack. there was another thread already made concerning precognitive dreaming and you already stated your opinion on the matter, but you went further to make another thread to continue your disapproval. that's rather uncalled for.

---

why?

Quote:

---

going back on the idea of scientific evidence, i think it's rather insulting to others that you only rely on scientific research when you handle new ideas. no one, except you, is trying to prove anything by bringing up a discussion of precognitive dreaming. furthermore, your reliance on specific methods of research is limiting and is only one point of view.

---

the Scientific method is the best way of gaining knowledge and deciding whether something is true/false. While not infallible, it's way better than personal anecdotes, personal accounts, and arguments from authority.

Quote:

---

i agree with you about standing up to false claims. but noone here can prove/disprove precognitive dreaming. attacking others and supporting your own point of view with weak arguments is not getting us closer to the truth.

---

as above. I'm not trying to "disprove" anything, rather to say it's not worth believing in precog dreaming (at this point in time). If in 10 years it's "proven" sure - then I'll believe :)

I've contributed what I can to the debate. There are peer-reviewed journals in favor of precognition, some links are in the thread. Google for it if needed. Mutual dreaming occurs and has been noted in dream journal entries. the problem is the subjective argument and hard problem of consciousness such as qualia which Science currently cannot answer.

Until we can record a dream and compare this vivid data to future events, other dreams etc... we will never know for certain due to the paradox of subjectivity. The rest is just your opinions and arguments which don't really amount to much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YAD

Until we can record a dream and compare this vivid data to future events, other dreams etc... we will never know for certain due to the paradox of subjectivity. The rest is just your opinions and arguments which don't really amount to much.

---

and that we can agree on :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yuriythebest

and that we can agree on :)

---

Great, I'm not one to try to sell the idea but I like to prove a point. Check out my James Randi thread particularly the last few entries.

Precognitive Dream Research - JREF Forum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YAD

Great, I'm not one to try to sell the idea but I like to prove a point. Check out my James Randi thread particularly the last few entries.

Precognitive Dream Research - JREF Forum

---

yeah tried I to register there but they said I couldn't cause they said "I was a spammer" hmm...
Any chance you can PM the mods and tell em I'm NOT a spammer?