Does anyone else experience psychic abilities

The dream verified it for me

Hypotheticals basically disprove mystical experience and it’s easy to understand why. Imagine a car wreck that occurs just in front of you. You can think “I’m lucky that I forgot my car keys this morning, which delayed me, because if I didn’t forget my car keys happened then I would have been in that car wreck”.

But that’s not luck. That’s just coincidence. Nothing mystical about it.

You can go further. You had a dream about your dead grandmother. And you believe that dream made you forget your car keys. Then you get these irrationalizations such that “My dead grandmother made me forget my car keys, therefore I was late, therefore I was saved from a car wreck.” Again, none of this means anything. But that’s how some people (ir)rationalize events.

Also some people cling to Mysticism so strongly, that there “must be a mystery to everything”, or certain situations “cannot be explained rationally”, similar to Christian belief/faith in god. These people cannot be reasoned with. Because you can explain everything to them, show them every nuance and cause, and they will still reject it all for the supernatural. People who believe in the supernatural, are unreasonable in their faith. This is because they prefer fantasy to reality, and will never let go of fantasy. Fantasy is easy, requires no effort, no thought, no reasoning. Children cling to fantasy, because it requires little to no responsibility. Believing in fantasy absolves people of responsibility, of bad thought, of irrationality, of being forced to pay the costs of bad thinking.

Adults cannot afford to pay such prices. Fantasy is not worth the cost, when you could have known the truth, but chose to ignore it. In the real world, fantasy has a steep cost.

Eventually people quit paying the price. Yet there are those who the price is paid on their behalf. So fantasy is a luxury that not everybody can afford.

There is no such thing as coincidence. Your example, using the car crash, assuming I would attribute it forgetting keys and feeling lucky, falls short. I would say that all things led to avoiding the car crash. There are no isolated incidents, nothing to tape off like a crime scene. The 43rd sea creature that slimed it’s way on to land is just as responsible for me forgetting my keys.

You say some people can’t be reasoned with, like that is the ultimate flaw. Do you know what a person who can only be reasoned with sounds like. Like they are rigid, and lack flexibility. Like they miss any hint of magic in life, because they refuse, or simply cannot bare, to look for it. Or admit they look for it, too.

Some people who can only be reasoned with are more afraid of being seen as wrong and vunerable than wanting to be right.

And if it’s any consolation, I can afford fantasy. And yet, I am prepared to reject video games and VR life built from code logic. Can you say the same about yourself?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNBnWBAaQIo[/youtube]

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.

Therefore there is nothing to warrant ‘psychic’ episodes about having a car crash, or not. People who claim to have psychic experiences, about intuitions and future events, discount all the times they’re blatantly wrong but focus on the 1 in a million occurrence when they were, arguably, right. They take that one time, out of a million, as “proof” of psychic events, when it’s still unwarranted.

It is an ultimate flaw. Reason is the difference between Man, above animals. If you cannot be reasoned with then you are more akin and alike to an animal than humanity.

Reasonable people are flexible, because all propositions are listened to, before being ruled in or out, as more or less predictable or realistic. First you reason, then you judge. You make judgments, based on reasoning and rationality. You make decisions in life, as such.

I’m not the one making unrealistic claims about psychic experiences. Everything I can claim, I can also attest to and defend fully well.

The thing about reason is that it can, and does, as Philosophy does, take all the “magic and mystery” out of life. Philosophy can reveal everything, uncover everything. It can dispel all falsity, all childish notions, and return every supposition back to reality. This is why I say that any magic and mystery in life, can only come after philosophy and realism is regarded and accepted fully. This is why I mentioned already that rationality has more “magic” than psuedo, childish fantasies of psychic experiences. Rationality is the exception in life, not the norm.

Concerning all the “coincidences” in life, every person alive has limitations to what they know, remember, and observe. Coincidences reinforce those mental limits. What seems coincidental to one, will not to another with more knowledge and awareness, to one with higher consciousness.

What are people in this thread’s thoughts on p-hacking and the replication crisis in the social sciences? The evidence being presented here seems very similar to p-hacked evidence for unreplicable findings, and the way to reduce p-hacking (pre-registering hypotheses) is pretty much what I’m asking for when I ask for a concrete, public, and risky prediction.

The p-hacking problem as I understand it: p-values are basically a measure of how unlikely an outcome is. If two measured variables are unrelated but noisy, there’s some chance that they’ll look related due to random fluctuations. The more measurements you make, the less likely that is. For a result to be statistically significant, it has to be very unlikely that the result is due to noise. That requirement is expressed in terms of ‘p’.

For example, if we want to relate a specific demographic (D) to a target concept (T), we can survey a bunch of people and ask about their demographic information and about the target concept. We then look at all the surveys and see how they’re related. And we can say in advance that there’s a certain likelihood, (L), that, given the number of surveys we have, we’ll get a false positive – that through random noise we’ll find that (D) is related to (T).

The problem arises when many data points are measured, such as on a survey that asks for lots of demographic information and then lots of questions about a target concept. What happens is that we have a bunch of different relationships, between (D_{1}), (D_{2}), (D_{3}) etc. and (T_{1}), (T_{3}), (T_{3}), etc. Lets say that for any (D_{i}) and (T_{j}), there’s a likelihood of (L) that we would get a false positive. What was happening is that researchers took the data, looked at every relationship, found one that seemed to be related with a very low (L), and said, “look, (D_{i}) and (T_{j}) are related, and we’re super sure about it!”

But that math doesn’t actually work out. Let’s say there’s a 1 in a 1000 chance that we’ll get a false positive for any (D_{i}) and (T_{j}). If our data set allows us to make 100 (D_{i}), (T_{j}) pairs, then the chance that we’ll get a hit becomes 1 in 10, not 1 in 1000. If we treat any relationship we find as though we had only asked about that specific (D_{i}) and (T_{j}), we’ll be misled as to how strong the connection really is.

Does that makes sense? Am I incorrect in my description of that problem? Do you agree that it’s a problem? Do you see the parallels between that and the experiences described in this thread?

I am curious about your notion of what it means to make a truth claim. For me, a statement can only be said to be true if its falsity could be demonstrated. For example, my claim, “none of you are psychic”, can be falsified by a concrete, public, risky prediction that comes true. What can falsify your claims here? Or do you reject falsifiability as a necessary criteria for meaningful truth claims?

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.

I’m not arguing that the shit isn’t real. I’m making the distinction [the one I always make] between those who believe it is real “in their head” and those who are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same.

This little old lady is either willing to do this or she isn’t. Same with all the other true believers. It’s not unlike the discussions here that revolve around the belief in God. It’s a demonstrable fact that some do believe that He does exist, and some do not. But is it a demonstrable fact in turn that these Gods actually do exist?

From my frame of mind, psychic abilities are often intertwined in a belief in the supernatural. And once you are able to convince yourself that the supernatural exists, this somehow becomes intertwined as well in a belief in immortality and one or another rendition of salvation.

But then it still comes down to the extent to which this is more or less a psychological contraption designed [consciously or otherwise] to comfort and console you, or is in fact in sync with a reality that is true for all of us.

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.

And then once these folks confirm it, the folks in the philosophical and theological communities could discuss and debate the ontological/teleological implications of it for the “human condition”.

Urwrong, you are using reason as an excuse to deny what I’ve experienced in my life, a person you’ve never met and a life you’ve not lived. I can get sidetracked about this and start going into the ways animals are superior to humans, how they live in moment better than we can, but that really defeats my reasoning for starting this thread. To find like minded people who share a similar experience. Not sharpen debate skills.

I could make a thread about ufos, asking who may have seen ships, which I have, but here at ILP I’m sure to get flooded with posters asking why I never took a picture of it, why can’t a produce a picture. In the end, I will admit I can’t produce a picture. But I will not walk way thinking well, maybe I didn’t see the ufo, because somebody who probably doesn’t search the sky for that stuff had a forceful argument against aliens or space travel or my need for glasses. I can’t explain how the ships conquered gravity, either. So spot the weakness, and attack that.

I am not afraid to be wrong. That is the difference you’ve displayed between me and you. I’m willing to think I’m right only a few times. If it means discovering more, maybe only for myself and latching onto something bigger, then yes.

Sometimes you shouldn’t chime in if you disagree and just let the title annoy you because you can’t get off the ground with logic. Let it bother you that I levitated for a moment, between waking and sleeping. I’m done debating lucidity.

Lastly, for anyone out there interested in improving their foresight, hindsight is a way of being more clairvoyant.

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. 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.

What?

Wendy is right, about me at least. They are not carving me open, like E.T.

I personally would not give any credibility to someone who predicts a death for a specific person, irrespective of other obvious factors it is very unethical, yet it is supposed that one of the credentials of a psychic is the ability to be able to predict a person’s death and many have informed their ‘client’ accordingly. I had a friend who travelled through India when he was in his early twenties. A ‘mystic’ informed him he would die on his 36th birthday and he lived in fear up until this birthday. He said on that day he remained at home all day and never left. He is still alive and well.

How many of you have this ‘supposed’ ability?

You get to describe the qualia of what you’ve experienced, and you’re the leading expert on that. But you don’t get to decree the explanation. We’re denying your explanation, not your experience.

You keep saying this, and when you do I see it as making a fallacious argument that goes something like,

  1. I’m not afraid to be wrong.
  2. Therefore if I were wrong, I would admit that I’m wrong.
  3. I haven’t admitted that I’m wrong.
  4. Therefore, I am not wrong.

At this point, I realize I didn’t start this thread to convince doubters of anything. But I got caught up in doing that.

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

I went to woodstock 99 on a thursday. It was the day before any music started. I saw a man step on a field mouse. I looked up at the people arriving and the fences that surrounded the event, and I got the bad vibe feeling that something bad would happen during the event.

When I got home on a Sunday, I turned on the the Tv and saw the riots, the fire, and the reports of rapes. Since it was an event that was traditionally known as one of “peace and love,” to sense that something bad would happen was as risky as it gets.

Now, if I was a doubter, I would say, “Yeah, but you didn’t specify what bad would happen. It could have been a human stampede and you have claimed that.”

In the end, I can’t replicate the bad vibe I felt. I can’t put a bad vibe on display. I just know that when I got home to see the news, I was not surprised.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.