Does anyone else experience psychic abilities

[Urwrongx1000]

Urwrong, you are using reason as an excuse to deny what I've experienced in my life,

I'm denying your judgments, not your experiences, and this goes for anybody else who claims 'psychic' experiences. You're implying mysticism in the stead of human error and ignorance.

What's the difference, after all?

[iambiguous]

And I still reckon that if there are folks out there able to take their demonstrable abilities beyond the family, the neighborhood, the community and the local news, they would be known by now. They would have demonstrated beyond all doubt that they do have these abilities to, among others, the skeptics in the scientific community.

Why would they want to expose themselves to all the crazies? Why would they want to give up their privacy indefinitely? Why would they want to risk their personal safety and the safety of everyone they care about? I don't think you get that, that they have no interest in convincing the world like a lab rat that they have superior abilities.

Well, if they really do have these abilities, then the rest of us will never be privy to it. In any event, my point is that, in venues such as this one, claims of this sort either can be [will be] backed up with evidence or they can't be [won't be].

After all, what else is there?

Anyone can make claims of either possessing psychic abilities, or of knowing those who do.

And, if believing this is important to them, then believing it is really all that matters.

But why should I or others believe them?

How are they able to persuade skeptics to come over to their side?

Sure, if that is not important to them, then so be it. In a philosophy venue however claims are expected to be backed up more, well, substantively.

What they can do, what they offer is on their terms...not yours or the scientific communities. I don't think that most people can handle unknowns being revealed, becoming known, beyond the safe environment they have surrounded themselves in their existential contraptions and such.

Clearly then, in that sense, there are no doubt all manner of incredible claims being made around the globe. And, sure, to the extent that sustaining the claims is emotionally and psychologically important to those who make them, I don't imagine that my own skepticism here will matter much.

But there's still the part about demonstrating them to a point where an increasingly larger number of folks around the globe become aware of them. And then one day an episode pops up on 60 Minutes and the world is astonished to learn that someone really has been shown to possess these abililites.

Then we can begin to ponder the extent to which psychic powers may or may not be interwined in, say, the existence of the soul. Or of God. Or in an understanding of the existence of Existence itself.

Not unlike most things, Randi's million dollar challenge was as legit or illegit as one needed it to be. Or wanted it to be.

What?

My point here is that a belief [or disbelief] in psychic powers, becomes entangled in the contraption I explore on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

That, in other words, the belief becomes more a psychological contraption --- a comforting and consoling foundation upon which to embed/anchor "I".

And that this frame of mind may well be applicable to both the true believers and the skeptics.

Still, it would seem compelling to argue that it is incumbent more upon those who make the claim to demonstrate the fact of it.

[Urwrongx1000]

I had a dream last night that reminded me of an old movie I watched years ago: The Puppet Masters. However, in the dream, the world was occupied by aliens or some other mind-controlling type of creature and almost everybody was infected. So I was being hunted by humans being controlled by these creatures. I was hiding in different areas of a place I lived, long ago. I knew the territory so was able to keep away from the creatures. If any humans saw you then they were telepathically linked to everybody else. So you would get caught if anybody saw you. I was sneaking around my old house, it's property, because only my friend was unaffected other than me. But I was able to telepathically link to my friend's mind. I couldn't help him and watched through his mind that he got caught, leaving me as the only person unaffected.

Does this make me a psychic? According to many of you, believers in superstitions and mysticism, yes it does. But to me, it's not so meaningful or relevant.

[Carleas]

Clarify, what is a risky prediction? The stock market. What would be concrete for you other than your own experience?

Yes. If you could predict e.g. the closing price of the Dow in 2 weeks, that would be a risky prediction.

Take your Woodstock prediction as an example, which I think can help to clarify:
Did you write it down at the time? Tell someone? My first question is whether, when Woodstock wend bad, you were reminded of one a number of feelings about the show you had before it, and forgot a whole host of other feelings not confirmed in retrospect. This is a failure of human cognition that everyone makes, so it's important to be self-skeptical. That's why public predictions are more reliable: there's no thread of false memory, and if you make a million public predictions people won't be so impressed when one of them turns our right.

Next, how unlikely was it, on the information you had by normal means on the day before a show started, that you would be able to guess that the show would turn out as it did? I think "this show will turn out bad" is sufficiently concrete; the fact that the Wikipedia article on it has a "controversy" section is to my mind a 'hit'. But by that standard, there are only really two outcomes: good and bad. You guessed bad. How often do music festivals "go bad"? Woodstock '99 isn't the only one, I can name another one that went bad this year (Fyre). It does not seem all that uncommon, maybe not 50-50, but not a million to one either. And how much information about the concert did you have at that point? I wasn't there, but from the Wiki page it seems like the way things were set up, e.g. banning outside food and price gouging on the food for sale, increasing corporatization, and the style of music, might suggest that there would be a lot of angry people at the concert. Did you have enough information on that Thursday that a reasonable person might have guessed that things would go south?

All told, it seems like your prediction wasn't public, it was concrete, but it wasn't particularly risky. That's how I would score it.

[Urwrongx1000]

1. I had a bad feeling once.
2. Then a bad event happened.
_____
3. Therefore I have psychic abilities.


Correct me where I'm mistaken.

[Maia]

I told a friend about my dream, because it was so intense, before the actual tornado hit.

[unknowing]

Clarify, what is a risky prediction? The stock market. What would be concrete for you other than your own experience?

Yes. If you could predict e.g. the closing price of the Dow in 2 weeks, that would be a risky prediction.

Take your Woodstock prediction as an example, which I think can help to clarify:
Did you write it down at the time? Tell someone? My first question is whether, when Woodstock wend bad, you were reminded of one a number of feelings about the show you had before it, and forgot a whole host of other feelings not confirmed in retrospect. This is a failure of human cognition that everyone makes, so it's important to be self-skeptical. That's why public predictions are more reliable: there's no thread of false memory, and if you make a million public predictions people won't be so impressed when one of them turns our right.

Next, how unlikely was it, on the information you had by normal means on the day before a show started, that you would be able to guess that the show would turn out as it did? I think "this show will turn out bad" is sufficiently concrete; the fact that the Wikipedia article on it has a "controversy" section is to my mind a 'hit'. But by that standard, there are only really two outcomes: good and bad. You guessed bad. How often do music festivals "go bad"? Woodstock '99 isn't the only one, I can name another one that went bad this year (Fyre). It does not seem all that uncommon, maybe not 50-50, but not a million to one either. And how much information about the concert did you have at that point? I wasn't there, but from the Wiki page it seems like the way things were set up, e.g. banning outside food and price gouging on the food for sale, increasing corporatization, and the style of music, might suggest that there would be a lot of angry people at the concert. Did you have enough information on that Thursday that a reasonable person might have guessed that things would go south?

All told, it seems like your prediction wasn't public, it was concrete, but it wasn't particularly risky. That's how I would score it.

Well, I was with two friends at the time and I said out loud: "Something bad is going to happen here." They just looked at me. End of conversation.

You're right there were a lot poor conditions that led to riots, price gouging especially. This is why I made it point to include in my post that it was a day before the event was scheduled to start.

The most I can give your argument is that I made the prediction in relation to the man stepping on a field mouse. If the concert is supposed to be about peace and love, this instance with the mouse, is not a good start towards those two ideals. I may have attributed the actions of one to the arriving multitude. A real stretch, though.

Making announcements public has not in my experience been much different than saying predictions have worked out after the fact. In one of the above posts, I mentioned that I asked a friends sister if she was worried a plane would crash into her house. She said no. Laughed at me. Doubted. The facts were even on my side. An increasing number of planes were crashing, whether I predicted them or not. A few months later a plane crashed into a building across from her house.

Now you would think a normal person would recognize that a prediction was made. Did she ever congratulate me? Pat me on the back? Or become more believing of my ability? No. It was still her tendency to overlook the prediction. Deflate my ego. To double down on doubt. Human beings throughout history don't respond well to warnings of any kind, even reasonable ones that many agree on. And will claim scaremongering before taking any action to prevent anything.

I wish I could predict the stock market or lottery ticket numbers, but I can't. Most of the the predictions have involved danger, and another half of them have be neutral or personal and I still can't figure why it was those events that entered my mind beforehand at all. Sorry to disappoint. I wish I could control it. Or use it. I can't. I was only asking if others experience similar odd occurrences. Now I'm confronted with proof requests. Intuition doesn't lend well to proof. It is very much an internal mystery.

[unknowing]

I told a friend about my dream, because it was so intense, before the actual tornado hit.

Right.
Some dreams are so vivid, you just remember them. Not because you feel they predict anything. Then after the encounter with the dream related event, it's easy to recall and make the match.

I've had plenty of vivid dreams that didn't predict anything. But my point is that I remember them over others. Some pan out.

Some people who doubt probably don't care much for dreams. After all, they might say, they are "just dreams." Treat dreams like that, and they'll fade much quicker.

Treat dreams with questioning attitude, inspect them, and you'll unlock connections, subliminal or otherwise.

[unknowing]

1. I had a bad feeling once.
2. Then a bad event happened.
_____
3. Therefore I have psychic abilities.


Correct me where I'm mistaken.

You're not far off. It's that simple.

I had a few bad feelings, a few dreams, a few daydreams while writing fiction, and yes, the world confirmed my thoughts, feelings, dreams, like it folded back on itself.

Ever hear of the book or movie, The Secret? There is some truth to it. And the trick to it is being open to the idea that there is some truth to it. If you doubt, there is no truth to it. Seek and you shall find, is not my expression, but, hey, you can be special, too.

[unknowing]

Some of this has to do whether you are sensitive person or not. There are a lot of downsides to being sensitive, most specifically the emotional pain. To understand my claims if you are not sensitive, is to accept there is also a benefit to sensitivity. So please don't crush the the thin-skinned. Or do, they'll be plus side to it, maybe.

[Silhouette]

Notice all the times you think/dream about scenarios, intense or otherwise, that don't come true at all.
Note that they are far far more common and you don't count yourself as psychic for seeing in advance what didn't happen.

Also appreciate that of all the things you imagine/conceive in any form that aren't happening have some chance of being similar to things that happen later to some degree - even significant degrees. They're bound to happen. And that's not even taking into account subconscious factors that make you more likely to think of certain things, more likely to fear certain things and more likely to notice fear-inducing things. Do you consider yourself to be psychic because you walked down a road and saw a rare tree that was on your mind at some earlier point? And as has also been said, memory is highly susceptible to being selective and changing over time...

The whole thing can be boiled down to the old "correlation does not mean causation", but some people seem more susceptible than others to the seduction of awe and the attribution of truth to awesome/awful things. Everyone is going to experience the exact some things as you, some more and some less, but they don't conclude psychic. Ask yourself honestly: why are you one of the ones who does? It's entirely possible that you're on one end of the bell-curve of normal probability of coincidentally imagining something before something similar enough happens, but ask yourself honestly: what significance does that really have?

If you like the idea of being special, earn it. Don't linger on false conditions that create this illusion for yourself - by all means entertain them for fun - but kill your ego. Some people are going to be more different than others, it doesn't matter if you aren't, the challenge of accepting who and what you are is far more fulfilling than basing your self-worth on dishonesty.

[Urwrongx1000]

You've perverted the meaning of "Psychic" to include anybody and everybody. Are animals psychic? Are children psychic? Everybody is psychic? Then it doesn't mean anything.

Here's a question, if Psychic powers were real, then why haven't Psychics walked into Casinos and cleaned them out, making millions of dollars by foreseeing cards and gambles? It hasn't happened because the common definition of a "psychic", does not exist. It is fantasy, child's play. Children dream about psychic powers, telekinesis, telepathy, etc. It's a fun imagination and fantasy. But adults must grow out of those childish fantasies, and end the charade of Santa Clause. Do you believe in Santa Clause too?

Changing definitions of 'psychic' won't help. Almost everybody has intuition and "feeling", that doesn't mean it's accurate or that semi-valid predictions mean anything special. They're not special. They're common. People have "bad feelings" about events, other people, experiences, dreams, all the time. Why is your experience special and unique, but the rest of humanity, is not? Why are you a psychic but nobody else is?


I understand the premise. Some individuals are so attached to childish-fictions and fantasies, that they are unwilling to let them go and give them up. Magic must exist. Santa Clause must exist. And some people will simply never overcome these, living lives of sheltered protection, make-believe, privilege. Eternal children, never confronting a "less magical" real-world. I understand all of this. You want to keep your "magic", your children's fantasies. You're in luck, because, much of humanity is regressing and devolving to eternal-children. Adherence to reality, "hard facts" and "hard truths" are becoming rarer. Philosophy is becoming more difficult in this regard, as idealists filter in and overflow the philosophical avenues.

But, at least, your arguments are unconvincing. They won't convince anybody worth convincing. "I had a bad feeling, and then a bad thing happened" does not make you a "Psychic", by any reasonable account. That's not enough, not even close.


Rationality beats you by a long shot. Why do people have intuitions, good feelings, bad feelings, if not mere predictors of behaviors and future events? The more intelligent an individual is, well reasoned, and wise, then this person will have a vastly superior sense of predictions than most others and especially over "psychics". No walking on water. No levitating. No guessing a number between 1 in a billion with accuracy.

No "Psychics" can ever produce or reproduce these actions, therefore, no reason to believe in fantasy and fiction. Although many children seem to be holding out hope, for magic, for a world "better than" the real world, a fantasy world where everything is possible.


These children obviously don't have car loans and mortgages to pay off. Are you using your psychic abilities to pay for your house? No. Why not?

[Carleas]

If every time I met a new person, I said "I'm having a vision: your birthday is September 26", I'm eventually going to meet someone whose birthday is September 26th, and that person is going to be blown away. But that's not impressive at all, right? It's just a matter of time and numbers.

The same is true if you're having "plenty of vivid dreams", or if you tell your friends and family about all your dreams (Maia, just guessing, but probably not the only dream you've told your friends about?). Eventually you'll have a dream that is vivid, prediction-like, was told to a friend, and vaguely resembles something that happened later. [EDIT: Silhouette makes a similar point above.]

That's especially true where, again, "recall[ing] and mak[ing] the match" really involves imperfectly remembering and unconsciously tuning up the memory to match the subsequent event -- literally fabricating a match. That's not a knock on anyone personally, that's how human memory works. It isn't trustworthy, especially for the content of dreams. It feels trustworthy, and that's why we get people insisting that Nelson Mandela is dead and the Berenstain Bears used to be spelled Berenstein. But it's demonstrably unreliable.

[unknowing]

If I don't respond to all points made above (three posters) just know I read them.

Do I believe in Santa Clause, too?

Yes and no. Not in any way sober way. Not if I was applying for a job and I had to convince you of, among other things, my sanity. However, if I asked you, an adult beyond such foolishness, to describe what Santa Clause looked like, we would describe the same appearance, "Close enough". You don't believe in Santa Clause and yet if I told you to rid your brain fully of the Santa Clause description you couldn't actively do it. Just the same, I can't rid myself of the memories of when I felt my intuition pull at me about some random event.

The philosophy I adhere to down deep is that everything, even concrete things that slap you across the face, even things that people uniformly agree on, possess some aspect of a Santa Clause description. Things that exist on your doorstep of your perception also don't exist.

I do believe that anyone can access the same abilities. I don't think anyone is special for any reason. While I believe there are false memories, I also believe every single memory you've ever had is recoverable, if given the right prompt, even the ones you don't remember remembering.

What is the significance of these experiences? I don't know. But I don't know what the significance of the the so-called common experiences are either.

I believe that for every loss there is equal gain, and the reverse. A compensation. But I have to be careful here, because my words can be twisted. This compensation isn't controllable, and it might also sound like a desperate recalculation. This being my belief, gain for loss, I have admitted much of the rest of my life is very boring. Is fantasy the compensation? Maybe, but the loss or the missed opportunity to become an adult skeptic surely has a gain. I don't expect the adult skeptic to appreciate the measure of it. The biblical God said, be as children, but I guess a paycheck is more important, validation from other serious, but brittle as a dry leaf, adults. Don't worry they won't tell you what it was like to live as children at the cookout. You won't be out of the promotional loop. That would be scary.

If I asked myself how many of these vivid dreams didn't pan out, there would be a lot. It doesn't bother me. I've still made use of them. I don't need to convince myself. If I was the one being convinced I probably couldn't shake the disparity of the numbers either. Lucky for me I don't ask people to convince me of much, especially not on majority appeal. I've never seen bigfoot but if someone told me they did, I'd probably go with their tale. I'm aware people lie about much smaller things.

Just know this, If I asked you to prove that you have thoughts, you couldn't prove it to me. You could simulate the behavior of thinking just fine. Just imagine the frustration of yours, saying things like, "But I really do have thoughts, look at my language now used to express them." That's great, but that's not proof. I would actually have to be you, have your actual thoughts to experience that as truth.

Big. Fat. Red suit.

So I'll ask again, Does anyone else experience psychic abilities?

[iambiguous]

What still seems rather extraordinary to some of us is that existence went from this...

1] The very early universe, from the Planck epoch until the cosmic inflation, or the first picosecond of cosmic time; this period is the domain of active theoretical research, currently beyond the grasp of most experiments in particle physics.

2] The early universe, from the Quark epoch to the end of the Photon epoch, or the first 380,000 years of cosmic time, when the familiar forces and elementary particles have emerged but the universe remains in the state of a plasma, followed by the "Dark Ages", from 380,000 years to about 150 million years during which the universe was transparent but no large-scale structures had yet formed.

3] The period of large-scale structure formation, including stellar evolution, galaxy formation and evolution and the formation of galaxy clusters and superclusters, from about 150 million years to present[citation needed], and prospectively until about 100 billion years of cosmic time; The thin disk of our galaxy began to form at about 5 billion years. The solar system formed at about 4.6 billion years ago, with the earliest traces of life on Earth emerging by about 3.5 billion years ago.

...to matter not only able to reconfigure into life, but into a life form that was then able to reconfigure into consciousness. A self-consciousness able to grasp all of this and then discuss it with others in venues like this one.

This reality in and of itself would seem to be, among other things, profoundly mind-boggling. We're still groping about in an effort to understand how this all came about. Imagine then how long it will be before we are able to grasp why?

If that can even be grasped at all by our own species. Perhaps the evolution of life on earth will produce a species far into the future with a brain that is able to.

On the other hand, where will we be then?

[Silhouette]

So I'll ask again, Does anyone else experience psychic abilities?

I'll say it again, no and and neither do you.

[unknowing]

So I'll ask again, Does anyone else experience psychic abilities?

I'll say it again, no and and neither do you.

You really have no way of knowing what I've come across in my life. I don't assume to know what makes life a mystery for you either.

I never realized how much this sort of thing threatens other people's belief systems.

Has anybody watched Long Island Medium? Seems real to me.

[Urwrongx1000]

Unknowing basically admitted to stretching the meaning of 'Psychic' to include everything, and therefore is a meaningless description and term. Having "bad feelings" means that you're a psychic, apparently. Unknowing also admitted to believing in Santa Clause. I hope that Unknowning is under the age of 18 because it's embarrassing otherwise. As an adult, lots of respect will be lost and philosophically, your views lose almost all credibility. You cannot be taken seriously with such a childish outlook on life and existence.

[unknowing]

Unknowing basically admitted to stretching the meaning of 'Psychic' to include everything, and therefore is a meaningless description and term. Having "bad feelings" means that you're a psychic, apparently. Unknowing also admitted to believing in Santa Clause. I hope that Unknowning is under the age of 18 because it's embarrassing otherwise. As an adult, lots of respect will be lost and philosophically, your views lose almost all credibility. You cannot be taken seriously with such a childish outlook on life and existence.

I'm allowed to stretch meaning. Meanings change whether I'm the prime agent of that change or not. It didn't become too slippery, unless you are dedicated to denial.
Bad feelings are akin to intuition which is sensing and extra sensory perception in general. Your gut is your second brain.

I used philosophy as a way to show that Santa Clause while not physically existing, can exist in the mind. So crucify me over at I love CommonSense.com.

Urwrongx basically called for a lynch mob witch hunt.

[Urwrongx1000]

Without a very specific meaning and intention behind the word 'Psychic', I believe people are fooling and deluding themselves, giving into childish notions and fancies, for fantasy and myths. Some people so strongly yearn for, or need, such myths in their lives. It's very petulant and immature, but I understand it completely. Unfortunately though, this is a philosophy forum and such fancies must be doused with cold water.

As I mentioned, if there is any magic in existence, then it is at the highest ends of rationality.

Teleport somebody from the 11th Century to modern times. Wouldn't an elevator seem like 'magic' to them? A cellphone? So what then is magic and mysticism, except a level of science and intellect that far exceeds the norm?


But that's not what you meant. If you don't grow out of childish delusions then you will suffer long and hard with philosophy.

Ignorance is bliss. At what cost, falsity? And to what great untruths do people devote their lives to? To want something that is not, true, to become so? To force falsity into truth if need be? As if it were easy, or had no costs?

Put your psychic abilities to the test, at a roulette table. Are you ready to spend $100,000 on them? And even if you won, how would you know whether it was luck or ability?


No need answering these questions, I'm done with the thread, thank you.

[Carleas]

Being compelled to, and having a strong desire to, are two different pulls on one's time and energy in relation to one's own will. [...] These are separate autonomous thoughts, not feelings.. it's only ever about the single one thought that I am compelled to act upon, when I never actually want to. [...] I have never thought of standing at a bus stop or spontaneously going home for no reason whatsoever.. other than those instances, nor any other unusual things that I didn't plan or want to do myself.

Here again is an experience that I don't know first hand, but I believe that others experience it. For me, strong desire and strong internal compulsion seem to describe the same internal state.

In any case, I have to think that an internal compulsion can arise in just the same ways as any feeling: by the relevant brain network being triggered in any number of ways, whether by another adjacent area of brain, by psychoactive chemicals in the blood, or by out-of-network stimuli like electric fields, radioactivity, or cancer. Granted that I don't know what the distinction between these subjective experiences feels like, it still does not seem to me that the story's weight as evidence depends on whether you did it for desire or compulsion. The distinction may mean a great deal to you, but meaning and evidence are different things.

Re: Isolate Qualia: [...]

What about this is impervious to mundane, non-psychic explanations? You decided not to buy a dream catcher, then waited around until someone who did want to buy the dream catcher bought it.

Is it that you thought you wanted a dream catcher and then upon seeing it decided not to buy it? Have you never had that experience before?
Is it that you stepped away from the shopkeeper after telling her you didn't want to buy it? Or that you then took another step some minutes later?
Is it that the lady stood in the same spot as you did to speak to the shopkeeper? You can't deny that was a good spot to stand in when speaking to the shopkeeper, since, after all, that's where you stood.

There isn't anything extraordinary going on here such that the only or best explanation is an extraordinary one. Ordinary explanations do just fine. What am I missing?

While I believe there are false memories, I also believe every single memory you've ever had is recoverable, if given the right prompt, even the ones you don't remember remembering.

Those beliefs seem irreconcilable to me. Just in terms of deciding what it means to "recover" a memory, if we can elicit false memories or true memories depending only on the way we ask, in what sense is a memory that better reflects reality more there than the false memory? Both are apparently equally "recoverable", which suggests that they're both equally manufactured by an unreliable process.

The philosophy I adhere to down deep is that everything, even concrete things that slap you across the face, even things that people uniformly agree on, possess some aspect of a Santa Clause description. Things that exist on your doorstep of your perception also don't exist.

I don't actually disagree with this, though perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you. I agree that there are truths about Santa Claus (so called "intersubjective" truths). I also agree that we cover the world in intersubjective concepts, so that all of our concepts have an intersubjective quality.

But I don't think it follows from this that we can believe anything we want. There are also intersubjectively false things we can say about Santa Claus. And it also seems to me that the statement, "Santa Claus doesn't really exist" is true in a different way from the statement, "Santa Claus has a beard". There must also be true and false statements we can make about the things "on your doorstep of your perception", and true and false statements of both types.

In any case, I don't agree that what you're saying about psychic phenomena is true in the way that "Santa has a beard" is true. There is no intersubjective truth to psychic experience, and from the intersubjective truths we do share it seems that claims about psychic experiences are false.

[Silhouette]

I never realized how much this sort of thing threatens other people's belief systems.

It only threatens anyone's belief systems in the same way and to the same degree as you saying "I am a cow from outer space", or "I have seen a square circle, u have no way of knowing what I've come across in my life so you can't tell me I haven't".

Well, yes, there are certain things that we can tell you that you haven't come across, and things we can tell you are not the case. Some things cannot physically exist by definition and some things are misinterpretations of what does exist. Whilst I have no doubt whatsoever that your experiences happened, an interpretation of them as psychic is as challenging to philosophy and the beliefs of others as experiencing your existence but then concluding that your existence is that of a cow from outer space. I've had plenty of experiences that I entertain with comments to myself or others such as "wow I must be psychic", so it's not like I don't know what you're basing your belief on. I just know what to do with such thoughts and why.

You can expect just as much of a response to any obviously wrong understanding.

That's not to say you can't utterly convince yourself you have seen a square circle, there's no limits it seems to the stubbornness of some people, especially if their identity or any other emotional attachment is challenged. In fact I expect you to be this way, from the way you're acting. It's just ridiculous that your display is all going on in a philosophy forum, but at least its resulted in all the rationality you'd ever need to ween you off your beliefs from at least some of the people responding.

[Jakob]

People think that the way they "see" isn't "psychic ability".
Unbelievable.

This is th 21st century folks.
I like your terms, MagsJ.

[WendyDarling]

A few prophetic dreams which turned into deja vus. Loads of deja vus throughout my life and the occurrences were quite amped up when I first started to really communicate on ILP in 2016, but the well's run dry as of late. Do deja vus tell you that your life is on track? Well, that's what I've always told myself or is it a "wake up dummy!" marker?

[Karpel Tunnel]

If every time I met a new person, I said "I'm having a vision: your birthday is September 26", I'm eventually going to meet someone whose birthday is September 26th, and that person is going to be blown away. But that's not impressive at all, right? It's just a matter of time and numbers.

The same is true if you're having "plenty of vivid dreams", or if you tell your friends and family about all your dreams (Maia, just guessing, but probably not the only dream you've told your friends about?). Eventually you'll have a dream that is vivid, prediction-like, was told to a friend, and vaguely resembles something that happened later. [EDIT: Silhouette makes a similar point above.]

That's especially true where, again, "recall[ing] and mak[ing] the match" really involves imperfectly remembering and unconsciously tuning up the memory to match the subsequent event -- literally fabricating a match. That's not a knock on anyone personally, that's how human memory works. It isn't trustworthy, especially for the content of dreams. It feels trustworthy, and that's why we get people insisting that Nelson Mandela is dead and the Berenstain Bears used to be spelled Berenstein. But it's demonstrably unreliable.

It is unrealiable as a rule: iow all people can trust their ability to.....You assumed in the above that in all cases the people who think they have certain abilities or certain things are happening are judging poorly statistically. On what basis did you universalize what, I do think, is often the case?