Does anyone else experience psychic abilities

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

People think that the way they “see” isn’t “psychic ability”.
Unbelievable.

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

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?

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?

You are, here, basically, making a psychic claim. “I have had certain experiences that I have concluded are the same as the experiences of all others who think they have psychic experiences.” Further you assume that you know what the whole set of their cognitive processes are when they evaluate their experiences. You know you can rule out any exception to your experience, since, presumably, people cannot have different skill sets, have learned different things, must be exactly like UP TO THAT POINT where you rationally dismiss and they naively believe. Since you argue that it is ridiculous he presents his ideas in a philosophy forum you might want explain how you have overcome the problem of other minds, which you seem to be implicitly claiming to have done, since you know with such certainty what is going on in his mind.

It says a lot the aims of this community. And not just about the psychic topic.

What is the ratio of skeptics here about all matters? Does anybody seek agreement on anything? What do you wish to arrive at in your thinking here? Do even want to arrive at anything?

Do you consider yourself an open minded person or is it somewhat closed?

How do you benefit openly sharing doubt?

Somewhere between classic philosophy and modern day logic is idealism. Do you dismiss idealism?

If something doesn’t exist in this world, does that mean you exclude parallel worlds where purple unicorns roam? I’m aware that is an extreme example. Do I have to strain to display that awareness to fit in?

The benefit of being nice is that you smooth over conflict and sometimes conflict goes away if isn’t met with resistance. Peace is the highest value. Better than dominant submissive sexual positions. Who the fuck doesn’t want utopia?

Whoops, I meant this for the rant house thread of mine.

I think unreliability universalizes fairly easily. If something is “often” unreliable, then it is unreliable simpliciter.

We can get into some quasi-math analysis, e.g. “there is some probability (S) (whatever counts as “often”) that there is some probability (P) (whatever counts as “unreliable”) that a thing will give false results, so the best we can hope for is truth with probability (1-(S \times P))”.

But I’m not speaking mathematically when I say that memory is unreliable. Rather, the mundane explanation for why someone remembers a dream that very accurately predicted an experience is that their memory is imperfect. We know that’s at least often the case, so it is mundane to suggest that it’s the case here.

Nice try. You want to claim that using logic is or can be psychic?

You don’t need to know the whole set of someone’s cognitive processes if they amount to something invalid: you can have a deeply nuanced and layered argument that square circles exist, but you don’t need to know it inside out to know it’s wrong. Have I solved the problem of other minds? No, but reason can bypass it to a knowable extent - hence why we can communicate meaningfully - it only works due to the use of logic, which I guess is some magical way of reading minds to you if you want to claim that I am making a psychic claim?

Effects occurring before their cause is not the way things work. We know this because they consistently follow causes and whenever they might be interpreted as appearing to precede them, there is no consistency beyond random chance.
Likewise the notion that the conception of the effect preceding the cause is in fact the cause of that effect in itself - this does no better than random chance either. All evidence points one way, zero evidence points the other - and this evidence or lack thereof applies to everyone who tests it - it bypasses the problem of other minds just like communication. Logically you conceive as reality that which is evidenced by reality, and that which isn’t evidenced you logically conceive as not real. Nothing “psychic” is needed.

I can easily turn this around by asking why you aren’t demonstrating skepticism of your skepticism and showing some consistency with your affirmation of skepticism?

Even more obviously I could ask why you aren’t being skeptical of psychic abilities instead of just being skeptical that the people who are showing skepticism of psychic abilities aren’t being skeptical…

I mean, did you really think this through?

Considering yourself to be open minded is closed to the consideration of your being closed minded. Unfortunately you can’t say anything, you can’t even “say” without something being affirmed and closing your mind to what you are saying and to the accepted language of saying it to at least some degree. Closed mindedness is inevitable, this is why the Buddha famously didn’t respond to certain questions - that’s the best a maximally open minded individual can do.

I have tried to doubt pretty much everything there is, demonstrating closed-mindedness is not in fact a completely reliable indication that you are not open minded:

I am in many ways an idealist, as I mentioned before… I am not dismissing Idealism at all. I’m just treating it rationally. When it comes to philosophy, I am closed to dealing with that which cannot be falsified - because otherwise you are just playing an aimless guessing game that gets nowhere. There’s nothing wrong at all with the consideration that there are parallel worlds where purple unicorns roam, but there’s literally nothing you can do with that - no philosophy can be gained from such a consideration so it is most loving of wisdom to leave it there. Imagination and creativity such as entertaining the possibility of psychic abilities is great… and then there’s also philosophy.

Why would a person believe him or herself ‘psychic’ or capable of ‘psychic’ abilities?

Firstly, psychic abilities spawns almost entirely from fiction, fantasy, and children’s stories. It’s a popular myth. In reality, psychics are never proven, never replicated, therefore improbable enough to be ruled out completely. If it has never done before then why, all of a sudden, would it be possible now? Thus the first reason for psychic belief is immersion into fantasy. And this is the plight of the modern world, of Modernity. Idealism and fantasy is blurred with, mixed into, reality. Thus modern people cannot tell apart fact from fiction, idealism from realism. A child’s fantasy with waking life. More and more people across the world are succumbing to these seductive and degenerative tendencies. Reality is pushed further and further away by common humanity.

Secondly, there is a simple misnomer and case of mixed up language. The believers here are replacing ‘intuition’ with psychic abilities. By doing this, they are casually switching between meanings, to bolster their case. Because without intuition, the believers really have nothing at all to go on. Thus believers must base psych-ism entirely in the subconscious, the area of ‘feelings’ and premonitions. Psychic ability is not really claimed as a brightly aware, conscious effort of prediction. Rarely or never would you hear a psych-ist claim that psychic powers come purely from intelligent, rational, wise thought. Rather they claim that it comes from ‘unknowning’, “it just felt this way”. Thus a person who is consciously aware, makes predictions based on reason, and gets a large amount of those predictions correct, would not be a ‘psychic’ opposed to somebody who “feels” premonitions and gets them correct only a fraction of the time, or never at all. Thus psych-ists are obsessed with the rarest premonitions, the one in a million occurrences, where somebody gets a wild fabrication semi-accurate. They then focus on this one in a million occurrence that “see, we were right, psych-ism does exist”.

Thirdly, psych-ists, and other believers, those of the religious sort too, cannot be proved wrong. And this is perhaps the most important point. They are so detached from reality that they make it literally impossible to be proved wrong. And because this is so, psych-ism along with other religious belief, dogmatism, fanaticism, puritanism, are all anti-philosophical. When a conclusion is taken as 100% true from the start (psychic abilities must exist) then these believers are working backward from that conclusion. The conclusion is fixed. They are looking for evidence or premises, confirmation, backward. They are starting from the end, and looking for a beginning, to make a case. Philosophically, even amateurs can recognize and its error. Since it is backward, it is irrational. Philosophy almost always starts from ‘unknown’ premises and works toward the known, instead of working from ‘known’ premises (the conclusion) and working toward the unknown.

You don’t know anything in philosophy. And so psych-ists, believers, dogmatists, puritans, must all be doubted. Your claims will not be taken at face value. You are probably lying. You could be stupid. That has yet to be decided. But it will be decided in time.

Fourthly and finally, even if you did have a “psychic claim” and a “psychic ability”, how would you be correct in anyway? These testimonies for psychic experiences are based on correlations. However correlation doesn’t mean much, in reality. Cognition exists to perceive, recognize, and predict patterns. Even children can intuit and recognize patterns, non-verbally. The brain does so naturally, without help, as it has evolved to do. That is the function of the brain and mind. The ‘problem’ then is a matter of description. A child encouraged to call his or her experiences “psychic experiences” are using fantastical terms, mythological, instead of rationally. A non-psychic person could just as well have the same premonitions, same predictions, similar dreams, similar deja vu, but rule out ‘psychic’ experience by matter of the connotation. Just because you have a dream, and it turns true, or you have a unique and special intuition, still doesn’t prove you’re psychic. That is because of the stringent demand implied by the connotation. ‘Psychic’ implies something super-natural, unnatural. Thus if somebody did have ‘psychic’ abilities then it would be apparent, easy to prove, and easy to replicate.

So what do ‘psychic’ people claim? Predictions about future events? Here is a tarot card? Here is a red ribbon? Therefore something will happen within 30 days involving red ribbons. That doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t prove anything. Rather psych-ists, dogmatists, believers, want to believe, and are willing to stretch the truth, bend reality, as far as possible to convince others that they have a semblance of legitimacy, when they don’t.

Keep your bibles…I’m not interested in false gods and false claims. It’s dishonest at the very least. You’re straight lying at the most.

They do? are these friends? acquaintances? stories you’ve read?

That is because it is not your mind experiencing the differentiation but the words - an internal desire is different from a seemingly-enforced compulsion upon one’s psyche.

Our desires are internal… they arise from within, these compulsions aren’t… they do not arise from within… I never said they did.

I didn’t think I wanted a dreamcatcher… I knew I wanted a dreamcatcher. It was the exact size and colour I was looking for, and both the stall holder and my friend said aren’t I going to buy it then, but I said not yet and that I would wait, but I had no idea what for - my friend wanted to then go, and the stall holder looked upon me as a time waster or perhaps a weirdo, but I repositioned us away from the stall and awaited for someone to come from the right of us, and the nanny ran right past us in the space I had just cleared and then further up and across to the stall.

Well the stall holder and my friend thought that there was something extraordinary going on, but that’s because they were privy to/in on the unfolding scenario… everyone else was oblivious, and therefore not privy to, the unfolding event.

Thanks! I have defined the phenomena as best I can… an internal/external dichotomy of dialogue seems to be the defining factor in differentiating the normal from the paranormal, which is the basis of the beginnings of all these events.

Understanding is preferable to believing, for those that don’t believe or conceive of such things.

I tend to agree for I have experienced it. The basis has to be an overwhelming absolute need to sort out the differences.

My personal testament, however, may be suspect to doubt, in accordance with any claims relating to psychic experience.

One starkly comes to mind is the dreamscape generated by my Polanyi subconscious experience. To my knowledge, (the conscious one), never has that name ever been one of which I could claim to have any prey or exposure to, especially in the context it became vocally.

This is why I am a believer in the practical cognitive ways a prior posited problem keeps working in the sub-conscious state.

It has become an absolute conviction by now.

I specifically responded to what you wrote as can be seen by what I quote and where I made the arugment. Here you present me with a strawman, as if I said something silly. This is disingenous and leads me to think you are not worth discussing things with.

I apologize for any confusion here, I was referring to the distinction in the subjective experience of compulsion and desire. I only meant that I have no reason to doubt that these feel different to you, and was calling back to Unknowing’s accusation that I’m unwilling to accept what I don’t experience. I don’t experience such a distinction, but I have no reason to doubt that others do.

This is question begging. We agree you felt something, and we disagree about the cause of that feeling. The impression that a compulsion was externally caused is not particularly strong evidence that the compulsion was in fact externally caused. We can trick ourselves into feeling external influence fairly easily (see, e.g., the ideomotor response). No information provided by the compulsions was anything you couldn’t have known, and nothing that happened is so extraordinary that the only or best explanation is that an external force acted upon you. What you felt may have seemed externally caused, but the mundane explanation is that it was not.

Perhaps they did. That does not mean that anything extraordinary was going on. The situation you described, when stripped of the subjective significance you’ve given it (and that your friend and dreamcatcher-vendor may have given it), is a mundane and predictable experience: you didn’t buy the last dreamcatcher, then someone else did.

There is of course a difficulty in conveying an experience like this, especially in this context. But I think it’s reasonable to take the skeptical stance as the default. You’re claiming that some force unknown to science influenced you in violation of every physical law. That’s an extraordinary claim. That’s a claim that, if vindicated, would have far reaching consequences, not least in requiring an explanation for why it’s never been detected in any sort of controlled condition. When faced with an extraordinary claim, with evidence that admits easily of much more ordinary explanations, we should favor the ordinary explanations, even if that means accepting that your feeling of compulsion was endogenous and your brain misled you. That too is an ordinary experience for humans.

Haha nice dodge!

Yeah don’t worry too much about discussing things further :laughing: You don’t seem up to it.

  1. You said I assume to know all of their cognitive processes, I explained how the use of logic means I don’t need to. Literally what you said: no strawman.
  2. As such, due to my use of logic, it doesn’t matter if there are being experienced any exceptions to types of experiences that I have had (I even claimed they’re likely very similar but misinterpreted due to various rational factors such as under-appreciating statistics and being susceptible to well documented psychological phenomena that can mess up how you remember something that you later attribute to predicting a current event). Again, directly applicable to your point about ruling out exceptions to my experiences: no strawman.
  3. Finally I showed how I don’t have to overcome the problem of minds when I can use logic in this case to bypass it: no strawman.

My conclusion in my previous post was arrived at by the use of logic, and you are trying to claim that I could only surmise what I did if I was in fact psychic - a vain attempt to call me out as a hypocrite.

Ergo: my summation of your post as “You want to claim that using logic is or can be psychic?”

Soooo… you guessed it… NO STRAWMAN :-"

And you messed up who you were quoting in your post FYI :smiley:
You have successfully shown yourself to be just as silly as he has, congratulations.

I’ve never had a psychic experience in my life, wish I did, I’m open to such possibilities.

Did anyone else ever find a wallet or photo ID in astral travel?
I tell you that shit is WEIRD
I cant say a lot but the future is fixed or something,

fucking weird

but it should be when you think about it because -
well,
the future is a result of the past. We are just along for the ride. We can look ahead apparently pretty fucking far.

WEIRDO ALERT
truth be told

I think psychic abilities are the result of consciessness trying to decipher that hidden channel between the transcendent and the imminent reality , between the posited ideal and the extemporenious possible.

This hidden channel has got to surface in the event of in implausible state of particular being, and oft it is misunderstood , it comes through as clearly and visibly as any kind of extra celestial message. The thing is, most people are not capable to deal with it or even begin to make sense out of it