On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: > > I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back > through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: > > "I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I > think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out > the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like > the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's > like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to > side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must > experience terror'". > > > Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard > to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. > > Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance that made it stand out as not "just another dream". A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. For a long time, science did not "believe in" lucid dreams - it took some rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could know it long before scientific method could catch up. Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that is sometimes both rational and correct to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific evidence. I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind. But how to measure such qualia? (And this is not to say that there aren't also many cases where a true coincidence is taken for more than that - maybe Liz's experience is an example, we cannot know.)
It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream diary, but > dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the possibly convincing clues > will be in the details. > > > > That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become > convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. > Although I'm agnostic on the "comp" question, it seems to me to be not at > all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* > precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). > > > I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not being > agnostic!). > Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1, or Z1*, > or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do in the modal or > math thread. > > Question: and is any physics not precluded compulsory? It seems to me it must be. > > > I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention of > a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous is > knocking! > > > The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being open to > it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with x being used for > the logics above, I could argue that the honest introspective machine can > hardly miss it, but it is not well seen in our culture, as most people > referring to it have been called heretics and banished or worst, for a long > time. We are just not modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid. > I completely agree. But sometimes, at least from a Jungian perspective, it knocks louder. And when it gets loud enough, failure to open the door can actually make you sick. > > Bruno > > > > > > On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: >> >> Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the >> door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in >> most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying "no >> thanks we don't indulge" or words to that effect. >> >> I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. >> >> A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 >> and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy >> came to the door with a copy of the "Watchtower" and a personal message >> from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. >> >> Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a >> situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked >> him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a "worry dream". >> >> Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
