Carl-Richard

1. I have responded to everything that you have engaged me with, granted the non-linear chronology. 2. No you seem indecisive and you're leaving for reasons other than what has been recently provided. Cardeña's review is exactly what you have been asking for. It's not "absolute relativism".

I've never heard somebody pleading to use "common sense" in a philosophical discussion before. Seems either neurodivergent or ad hoc use of the term. I don't think there is a reference point. There is just two perspectives with claimed similarity. The "realness" concept is just a way we want to ground the fact that they're similar. And we usually grant it to physical phenomena. Whether we also grant it to psychical phenomena is what we're trying to discuss. You mean less people claim to have psychical connections than physical ones? Probably yes. You're equivocating on "identical" and "similar" here; I never claimed "identical" in terms of experience; perspectival knowing never is. And I think your reasoning is circular (or it serves no purpose). How do you know how rare it is such that one can't have multiple witnesses? 1. "73% endorsing at least one of ten purported psi phenomena" — https://news.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx. 2. r/psychic -> shared dreams. Not always. The consistency of many things is very consistent. But there are cases of novelty and ambiguity where we doubt our own sanity and we start going through the ways which we deem something to be real. For example thinking you heard somebody call your name but you were not sure, or you saw somebody who looked like a celebrity but you weren't sure. "Did you see that?" Psychic phenomena could be thought to exist in that category (most of the time for most people). That's naive and not the reality. Feel free to explain why Dr. Cardeña's review of thousands of psi studies goes unnoticed. Already addressed this. You seem to make a point that technology makes psychic connections more likely to be asserted. I'm just trying to eliminate the technology from the equation and see if you're still applying the same standards. Again, many of the experiences are local to my life and have nothing to do with "technology". It's a vacuous argument. "Coincidences are expected". Sure. Now tell me when you think something is a coincidence vs not. Equivocating on "disprove" (you can't "disprove" the way I'm attaching meaning to something in the same way "disprove" is defined initially). "Impossibly unlikely" is literally, explictly, a contradiction, you should be able to pick up that as you're reading it. Your definition of "common sense" and you assuming I should know about it implicitly through cultural knowledge, is implicit. A whole another level. The point was you're calling me pre-rational when I'm engaging with you with post-"rational" philosophical frameworks (Popper called himself a [critical] rationalist; Kuhn and Lakatos provided critiques to Popper and are in that sense post-"rational"). Not that it's the most pivotal point.

I just thought about how to capture the sonic/aesthetic aspects of the genres of death metal and black metal in images: Death metal: the Balrog scene from The Lord Of The Rings movies. Monsters, heavy, big. Black metal: the Grim Reaper riding a white, dead, skulled horse in freezing cold winter in the snow (this is an actual black metal album cover when I think of it). Ghosts, skeletal, thin, screechy. Ironically, black metal becomes more about death and death metal becomes more about demons and perhaps Satan. Sample songs: Death - Zombie Ritual. Emperor - Towards The Pantheon.

It is possible to simply stumble into playing in a way that sounds good without learning too much about scales but rather learning songs that use scales. In fact I think those who know very little about scales but play intuitively come up with some of the most interesting music. Mikael Akerfeldt from Opeth is one example: 2:30-3:12 Chuck Shuldiner is another: 4:00-4:20

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a26cd3e-d82c-83eb-9d2d-85e5e78f0ed3

I invent the white pill: no inner or outer game, perfect non-duality. "Do-nothing", just be, don't flee, see, feel, touch, smell.

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/the-evidence-for-the-most-compelling-psi-phenomena/seeing/

Absolutely brutal.

Ooo, a 2025 meta-analysis on 26 telecommunication telepathy experiments found overall positive results: https://journals.lub.lu.se/jaex/article/download/25934/24357/74647 The telephone telepathy study I mentioned and which you said others have failed to replicate have actually been successfully replicated in various settings. This is not uncommon for even "rigorous" scientific in fields like behavioral science, biotech; if a study is even attempted replicated (which is actually rare), you tend to get some replications and some failed replications (read about the "replication crisis"). And even if you get some successful replications (or only successful ones), you could be wrong about what you're actually testing (the proposed relationships could be spurious or influenced by confounding factors). So scientific evidence is also strictly only something that adds credence, it's not strictly in the realm of "debunking". Especially something like telepathy, which can be dependent on state of mind and which can be influenced by the experimental situation itself, could be simply not picked up as much in experimental research, and that would be a limitation of the methods and not reflective of the underlying phenomena it is trying to test.

You have not actually "debunked" anything. You have brought up kinds of things I've already considered. The tension between "coincidence" and reality has always been there. It's just you seem to think categorically "coincidence" wins every time for psychic phenomena. Yet there is no clear standard for this, you just point to some arguments and assert they debunk it in aggregate, but you fail to explain exactly why they should debunk it and the scenarios which they don't debunk it. If you can give the exact criteria for when you consider psychic phenomena or epistemically analogous physical scenarioes to not be "debunked" (and that it does seem to be categorically grounded and not some arbitrary accumulation of criteria), then you have a point. My point is that the way you judge something to be real is always an "arbitrary" accumulation of criteria, it's always a statistical case of weighing your credence for a hypothesis. So expecting to "debunk" something is the wrong expectation, you can only expect to persuade through making someone consider things they have not considered (and assume they are consistent in the application of their own criteria). That's why I'm asking for a physical analogy for the five criteria that I would not believe to be real. Then maybe I'll find something I've not considered.

( @Jirh It's gonna be tough to clear up the responses when I have the time and I'm not tired, but I will do it when I have the time and I'm not tired). You can distinguish between apparent convergence (the evidence) and actual convergence (what you're trying to prove), you don't have to call it a contradiction. You do this frame thing where you create an error where it doesn't necessarily have to exist. You're assuming the TV recording is an actual recording and not say from a movie, or a fictional TV show, or some kind of AI-generated clip. It can be anything. It looks very real, but its source is ambiguous. That's a proposed physical mechanism for an actual recording, but you can give mechanisms for the dreams as well (I do in the next paragraphs). It's not backwards in time (not that it fundamentally matters, but in terms of degree of credence). It's temporally parallel. When you're asleep dreaming, you're dreaming about the event at the same time as it is happening in real life (you find out about it afterwards). The information does not have to travel in "time", only "space" (non-locally), outwards like electromagnetic radiation (if we are to use a physical analogy; of course, reality need not necessarily work that way). Here is a proposed mechanism (in line with morphic resonance): stronger event in terms of emotional significance (or simply "significance"), stronger "signal" is sent out, easier picked up (resonated with), especially when in an altered state of consciousness like sleep where usual egoic blinders are not as much in the way. That's how you would explain when you lose signal on your phone when there is bad service or your wireless headset when you go too far from your phone (the information disappears because the signal is too weak). "But how do we test it?" I linked a study which you tried to debunk with an AI response (I haven't responded to it yet), but honestly Tom Campbell's personal stories (watch his JRE appearance) where he actually claims to gather useful information from reality non-locally is perhaps another path of inquiry ("charlatan" - judge for yourself, see if he comes off as genuine or some kind of ego-maniac; I personally think he is Enlightened). 1. Let's find a better analogy, maybe we have to go into the jungle again, and 2. except if somebody else dreamt the same thing (and perhaps they were together with you in the dream and they verify that). Shared dreams (as far as they are claimed to be shared) are known to happen. "But how can you know you dreamt the same thing? You and they only have access to their own dream". How do you know we see the same thing? Same fundamental problem there, give or take certain kinds of consistency. Again, I want you to find an analogy of a 'physical' situation that follows the five criteria and which I don't believe is real. And if the burning TV example was difficult, imagine if you instead saw PsychedSubstance getting kicked out of his own house in the TV clip, then later the same day (or perhaps plus minus a week or so given the conditions I gave) you see his YouTube video explaining that this in fact happened to him. That would definitely get your mind in a certain direction.

@AerisVahnEphelia If somebody like Trump, a buffoon, can get elected twice, purely on populism and faux charisma, no coherent philosophy, imagine how somebody like Nick would do. Actually quite smart, actually charismatic, actually has somewhat of a coherent philosophy, and strongly populist. Early 21st century saw the rise of dumb pseudo-fascists, mid 21st century will see the rise of smart nazis.

@Jirh I will respond to each point when I can, but I think if you can find me a non-psychic (physical) scenario analogous to the five criteria that I would not believe to be real, then we can progress in the discussion. Imagine you're watching TV and you're flipping through channels quickly without seeing what channel it is. You flip through maybe 100 channels, and one of them shows a clip of burning buildings and lots of smoke and flames, lots of devastation, but that's all you can really see before you flip the channel again. None of the other hundred channels showed anything remotely similar. It also seemed quite serious so you paused a little when you saw it. Then later the same day, you open the newspaper on your phone, and it reports the largest fire in 100 years in the country. Now, would you think the channel where you saw the burning flames, lots of devastation, even though you only saw some parts of it, is more likely than not the same burning fire and flames you now see being reported in the news? If yes or if no, why or why not? I believe this analogy covers the five criteria quite well and the issues you raised of approximate similarity, selection bias, not keeping track of the full picture, etc.

It's the distinction between identification (with form) and form itself. Ego death breaks the identification where some forms are identified as self and others as not-self, but after the break of the identification, form may remain. It's just all you. And if there is no form, that is also all you. In reality, there can only be said to be you, but when you want to talk about what has shape, what has form, what changes, what remains silent, you can talk about form vs formless.

IQ is probably more about thinking vs feeling in general (and also intuition vs sensing in general). But I could also go into extraverted/introverted functions (I do that at the end for thinking and intuition functions). Thinking (logically) is about stringing multiple things together, so it's quantitative, so more, faster, bigger, is a lot of what IQ is about. Feeling is more qualitative and you can just give an answer based on a feeling and that's it. Intuition (in the Jungian typology sense) is about seeing and "receiving" abstract patterns, a form of pattern recognition ("what links water/liquid and vapor? Phase transitions! (N) Because water/liquid and vapor are just different phases of the same substance (T)"). Sensing is just picking up on concrete information from the environment either directly or through memory, which also involves pattern recognition, but your thinking is embedded in that particular environment somehow ("we put that screw into that thing here, see, then it fits (S). Because the screw supports the weight of the leg (T)"). You could say intuition tends towards IQ more than sensing because it deals with often more complex patterns and just more patterns in general because abstractions don't need to be tied to something directly in front of you and can grow outwards like a tree and can connect to other things not currently right in front of you. So it tends towards more quantitative. As for introverted vs extroverted, I would bet on extraverted intuition as most conducive because it explores rather than reduces. And also introverted thinking because it's more concerned about consistency for its own sake rather than for some pragmatic or realistic real-world goal, so it can go exploring endlessly together with extraverted intuition in the abstract where most quantity is found. In other words, ENTP/INTP > INTJ/ENTJ > the rest (I wouldn't want to go into tertiary functions or extraverted vs introverted sensing or feeling functions for the sake of everybody's time).

But most people haven't unlocked those last 20% of health, sobriety and restedness "I'm not a health 'optimizer', I'm a health '-maxxer'" - C.M., 1994-2026 (adapted the quote of course ).

Some co-student of mine once told me she qualified for Mensa (in a work group with others which was kinda "low EQ" if you can call it that), and I wanted to respond "if any of you really wanted to join Mensa, you most probably could" (implying you could practice a lot to become better at the tests or simply increase your IQ functionally in more organic ways).

IQ in a functional sense, as in the actual performance on the actual test were you to take it. Try taking an IQ test while constantly inhaling nitrous oxide, while you have pneumonia, diarrhea, haven't eaten for 8 hours or you just crashed your blood glucose or neuroinflamed yourself with cake, or you fried your fast food preservative-saturated leftovers to a black crisp in the worst PFAS-ridden leaky pan decimating your neuronal oxygen intake. But state over longer times leads to structure differences. If you are at 150 IQ functionally speaking and you engage with 150 IQ content, you will have structure that accommodates that after a while (not only as crystallized intelligence but also fluid intelligence structure as well). If you feed your brain what it needs to fire quickly (which is what diet, exercise, etc., does), and you teach yourself over time to engage in activities that makes it fire more quickly (which is e.g. what N-back does, or just reading or thinking complicated/complex things), naturally you will make structurally adaptations for it to fire even more quickly. And then when you miss a meal or some days of exercise, you will still have those structural changes there. We know doing things like meditation, N-back training does change brain structure, so doing it "better" (under more optimal conditions) would just change it more in that optimal direction. Lifting better increases muscles more than lifting worse; brain training better (using your mind better) makes it adapt in that direction more than brain training worse.

True. It also varies based on state, e.g. if you eat some trashy food or you stop working out for a while (or if you're really tired or you had a superb night's sleep). I'm convinced diet, exercise and brain training techniques like N-Back and of course meditation can bump your IQ up or down with 20-30%. If I were to rank it, probably N-Back and Sprint training / HIIT would be tied first place, then meditation and weight training and moderate-low intensity cardio, then diet (unless you're eating absolute poison, then it's #1).

IQ helps you see through people's bullshit. But it also helps you defend your own bullshit. You're easily bullshitted if you can't process a sentence efficiently (or simply hold larger pieces of information in your mind). IQ predicts things like reading comprehension. If you can't read a sentence without struggling to understand what it says, you have deficit in dealing with information, and no "EQ" or "true intelligence" will save you there. It's also a sort of false dichotomy to separate IQ from EQ. If you have low IQ, you tend to have low executive functioning, and that impacts your emotional regulation. I just watched a guy on an entertainment TV show do a math test, he also scored a two-digit IQ in an earlier episode, and when they revealed the results, even when he knew he was bad at math and has always been bad at math, he had an emotional breakdown when the other people on the show (colleagues) made jokes about him being dense. You would perhaps expect a guy with high "EQ" to say "yeah, I'm bad at math, whatchu gonna do?" and perhaps say something clever in response, being aware of their strengths and weaknesses, but instead, it was quite an embarrassing situation.

He got Sneako to cosplay as a muslim for a living and now everybody wants to deport him 🫢

Just had a thought, I'll respond to you @Jirh later when I have time. We should be aware of how we can frame the same things different ways. For example, a healer who can put their hands on someone and seemingly speed up healing, in the materialist epistemic paradigm, they will say "the sensual touch induces endorphinergic signalling which synergizes with the placebo effect which increases the innate regenerative mechanisms of the body". It's a very roundabout and "inside/outside" way of putting it. Meanwhile, a psychic will say "the healing energy leads to healing". It's a more elegant way of putting it; both may agree on the underlying effect, but they describe it differently. Similar with explaining precognition or telepathy with "very subtle implicit memory which the subject is unaware of having but which affects their inferences". Again the inside/outside split and hiding the "non-localitiness" in concepts like "subtle" and "unaware of having". Compare it to simply "you picked up information non-locally", again, much more elegant, and it explains the same phenomena which one can agree that is happening. This "lack of elegance" of the materialistic explanations indicate they are "epicycles", i.e. sometimes desperate attempts of the paradigm to deal with anomalies that challenges it. They are at least honest and not 'too' deceptive unlike jumping to ideas like "every unlikely event should be expected", as if it doesn't defeat any epistemic paradigm that tries to make non-trivial distinctions (any epistemic paradigm that tries to engage with probability and uncertainty rationally instead of dismissing it, i.e. not pure non-duality, ultimate skepticism, epistemic nihilism). Same with the concept of "real" (in it being a frame). What we really mean by real (as opposed to "hallucinatory") is that it's somehow inter-subjectively corroborated and consistent. Notions like physical space "out there" and actual things happening in a localized matrix are concepts we use to "summarize" our felt notion of real, how most things we experience as real seem to relate to each other. It's fundamentally a frame. And like I've alluded to, there are other phenomena we feel like can touch on the "real" category as well, that break with these notions of space and locality, but still fit the inter-subjective and consistent qualities associated with "real". That's what I felt I uncovered with these three original dreams fitting the five criteria which notably includes being inter-subjectively corroborated in terms of place / time / type of events matching. And this was me being "nudged out of my sleep" so to speak (that's also a pun) in the sense that I was currently inside the materialist epistemic frame and I experienced a radical break with it. But then when you're open to the alternative frame, you're more open to simply use it where it seems to fit, because you're not trying to "prove" its existence or validity. You're just following your sense of what you think is real or not. That's what I did with some of my more liberal dream interpretations. But those I also qualify with what my level of credence is, i.e. the level of uncertainty I feel, like I do with all other kinds of observations and inferences.

My boy Bernardo Kastrup, I just realized he is an ex-director of ASML, the largest company in Europe. And now he is about to land a 100m dollar fund for his new AI company Euclyd. Boy's brain is out of this world. 1:47:55 And how does he get that funding? Well, currently the leading chip manufacturer for AI is NVIDIA, and they make graphics cards designed for gaming. They were not designed with AI in mind, so they are very inefficient according to these startups that want to corner that market. Bernardo postulates their chips can reduce electricity usage by ~100x compared to NVIDIAs chips. Interesting times ahead not just for AI but for idealism and non-duality considering the seats of power and influence some of these people inhabit.

Consider how few things you need before you consider entertaining something as real (the car scenario, the sister lying scenario, the helicopter scenario) despite the statistical irreducibility of the universe. Then compare that with my five criteria. We're always just providing a few cents of epistemic currency in our everyday life yet we entertain it as real. So it's not surprising that when we have to push back against a multiple-century old culture that suppresses dissent through all possible shady means, it comes off as less convincing. But you just have to remind yourself of your actual epistemic standards that you use yourself in everyday life to see through that. Remind yourself of your "common sense".

You don't use common sense in a philosophical discussion (which is what I responded to, and now you added "rationality" for some reason as if I was responding to that), you use rationality. Nevertheless, instead of lecturing me on common sense and rationality, engage with the point where I claim to be rational (converging sensory streams). That's the crux of the issue. You did this later in your responses and I will address that. The reason I started entertaining them as real was because I had three of them in quick succession and they all matched the five criteria closely. I started to see some consistency to the phenomena. As for comparing it to "material phenomena", you could imagine someone seeing a helicopter once in a remote village, and if two or more people agreed on it happening in the same place at the same time, the fact that they both saw it adds credence to the reality of the phenomena when they tell it to the rest of the village. Then another time, they both saw a plane, and another time, they saw a drone. And by that point, seeing three cases of such machinery, they would perhaps start to conclude that somebody has built an airbase close to their village. So the reality of a certain phenomena was inferred based on three occurrences and involving convergence of sensory streams. Claims outside a prevailing paradigm routinely get called pseudoscience. That's nothing new, Kuhn has shown us that. Newton was called the equivalent of pseudoscience ("occult") for his "spooky action at a distance" notion of gravity; Galileo was dismissed as suggesting a "foolish and absurd" proposition with his heliocentrism challenging geocentrism. The fact is most people who call psychic phenomena pseudoscience don't actually bother to read the actual studies because they think the pseudoscience label (which they just got from somebody else, through perhaps wikipedia) basically already invalidates it (it's a very culturally strong and stigmatising label). Rupert Sheldrake has an interesting study on telephone telepathy you can read. That it's "the biggest" is a feeling you have, I don't think you have a number on that. Regardless, if it had happened to people I live in close proximity to and I only relied on say the local printed newspaper, would that change your mind or will you still default to law of big numbers? I could've lived in a nearby village in Kentucky where tornadoes did not touch down and I could be safely asleep, dreamt about it at night, then read about it in the local newspaper. My dad's boss I could've actually read in a local printed newspaper (had I been visiting my hometown); I just happened to read it online. "But global interactions make the statistics more likely". Yep. And many of the dreams that I interpret as likely psychic are also more local to my life. If a law says everything is possible, you can't use it to judge whether something is possible or not (whether psychic phenomena is possible or not). You can use it to account for everything and nothing and you have no standard for when it does not apply, so it's not possible to falsify when it applies or to falsify anything being possible with it. So it's a cop-out mechanism if you use it as a way to "prove" psychic phenomena cannot be the case. You have not specified why exactly it makes psychic phenomena not be the case, over anything else. So it can only be used as a way to weigh a proposition (and in a very vague way, not something you can actually count), not decisively disprove it. "Impossibly unlikely" is an informal way of saying "very very unlikely". "Pre-rational is when use rational argumentation as response but not when use condescending emoji and no concomitant explanation as response".