Predicting events in my dreams

Post Reply New Topic

This week in particular it seems that in my dreams iam predicting events that will unfold the following day. For instance last night I had a dream of bumping into some friends I know in town and what do you know I bumped into them today. The friends I ran into usually live miles away but have moved back to my hometown for a few days.


You cant tell me there is not some greater supernatural force causing these dreams too occur or would anyone care to give me a more scientific explanation?

There was a particular NDE'er who said a lot of interesting things about the composition of the mind, he actually died (for real) this year - Mellen Thomas Benedict. In particular of a few things that he said which I think are cogent (to go with a lot of less-so items) include the idea that the 'other world' of more purely consciousness that people see in NDE's or shared DE's is an emergent property of life on earth, not the other way around. He also made the suggestion that the peripheral nervous system and reptile portion of our brains are not only the oldest but they're highly psychical in nature. The idea seems to be that our cerebral cortexes are very new, especially the pre-frontal cortex, and that there's a disjunct in that psychic capacity between the part of the brain we identify as, which is about as psychic as a rock (well, who knows how well that analogy holds...) vs. the part of our nervous systems that have these capacities and run all of our organs, orchestrate our breathing, etc.. but clearly have no such thing as verbal capacity or inductive reasoning.

I've been in BOTA for several years and they try to take aim at this through study of the tarot (really something of a Jungian approach to it) and their analogy seems to be a very 1920's way of looking at conscious vs. subconscious. I know, from my own experience, that the kinds of premonitions, synchronicities, and even very strange conscious experiences like touch spanning out beyond your body, can occur through psychedelics and dissociatives.

I do think there's something to this stuff but here's the catch - just because an experience is vivid doesn't mean that the symbol you're seeing is what you think it is. What I mean is we've buried this stuff in so much symbol and religious iconography that our ways of describing it are heavily contaminated with 2,500+ years of recycled vocabulary.

Good luck on that work though. My advice: a) keep a dream journal b) if you can get into do some form of light pranayama or breath meditation. The later can be healthy/helpful regardless of what you expect the outcomes to be but I think those are some of the more reliable ways in at this stuff if you want to glean more insight. Studying symbols and mandalas tends to help, through for reasons I don't fully understand other than that perhaps they're visual data that both your conscious mind and that deeper layer can use as sounding boards to convey meaning back and forth.

Also something from Mark Stavish's Voxhermes that might be helpful:

https://voxhermes.wordpress.com/2017/04 ... -dreaming/

sure. biased perception.
how many dreams have you had that were not predictive?

assuming dreams are the experience of the byproduct of memory-formation and consolidation on a neuronal level, it means you are experiencing a mash-up of some memories, together with a lot of preconscious and semi-conscious and suppressed stuff- everything that went on in your mind the day before, plus the memories remembered that day, plus the associations attached to what you thought about or remembered. and some associations that are metaphorical, meaning, technically untelated memories that are being triggered "by accident".

is there a point in remembering that experience? not really, and if you hadn't met your friends, you likely would have forgotten you dreamt about it.

scientific enough, or do you prefer te collective unconscious, because, you know, science is indicating no such thing as a soul or free will.
just neurons firing, and other neurons firing to make up a story to justify it all.

And what about all those times your dreams did not predict anything in reality?

I read an interesting article, which I'm really surprised at - I didn't think Slate was up to this sort of editorial quality. It actually shows ESP as one of the few gold-standards for testing breaks/breaches in the scientific method. The actual study in question isn't new (2010) but the dialog around it as well as what it says about the shape of our culture is fascinating:

https://slate.com/health-and-science/20 ... roken.html

To even go further, when I look up Global Consciousness Project, PEAR, the Ganzfeld Experiments, etc.. I find the same thing - ie. all kinds of room for it to be argued that, really, scientists at world class institutions made statistical analysis mistakes that most honors high school students would raise an eyebrow at. It's that bad right now that all kinds of assumptions are up for grabs - ie. suggesting that it's a 'fear of death' conspiracy, that it's a skeptic conspiracy, or further (probably the only productive way you can possibly approach it) - we can ride the scientific method criticism train for long enough that the details emerge from the data points and that the anomalies actually take on enough consistency to say either 'yes - its all human error', or 'yes - there's a particular geometry to aberrations in statistics' and the scientific method would have yet another hurdle to both examine in its content and in its prevention.

The world of 'magic' seems to have two very different tribes in one sense and most people in the middle doing some degree of both. Ramsey Dukes/Lionel Schnell seems to be doing a fair job of outlining the more purely psychological approach - ie. treating internal experiences as if they're meaningful statements about one's deepest internal subconscious architecture. He had an interesting chat with Gordon White and really talked about this as each person getting to know their own operating system through a series of created games, personification of forces, etc.. On the other hand you have a lot of people who do fully agree that they're dealing with transcendental or trans personal dynamics (I'm not even sure whether Lionel is fully in one camp or the other) but there is something to be said that such outlook hasn't been, at least as far as I'm aware, open to test - or at least not without so much controversy that it's dismissed wholesale. I find myself doing both simultaneously and when the weather pushes me one way or another, ie. more toward deeper psychology or more toward being forced to question whether a new experience has made consciousness beyond matter that undeniable, I find the obligation to with it to some extent to keep working and keep inquiring.

I think the best thing the OP can do - he's had these experiences, let it be the start of a new experiment where he starts examining his own dreams more rigorously and seeing what kind of communication he can gin up with those deeper aspects of his composition.

In my own case I have to present something of my own findings and these may not be experiences everyone's had but I think they're considerably important for consideration. If our experiences of the 'supernatural' are purely our own brains doing things that seem counterfactual we're in a deeper predicament with respect to logic and reason as our base line and governing ourselves as a society. I've had at least two or three occasions where something did, quite vividly, interact with me in a second-person way and did so in such a manner where there was no tracking I could make directly between my imagination and the experience in real time (to that extent it was a massive aberration to the way I'm used to my mind operating - especially in that the intensity of these experiences isn't something that I can generate by my own effort even in the best of circumstances). I won't bother extending the claim much past that other than to suggest that, if it were pure and simple fear of death, it's probably not the part of my mind keying this as I'm rather ambivalent about the actual event of death and results and if anything far more concerned about my quality of life and general orientation to ethics and morality until then. If different parts of my subconscious mind want certain things of my thinking badly enough to give vivid experiences as such to insert faulty premises into my behavior and thinking - I think it calls a lot of our assumptions about how much we can trust much of anything that we think into question.

I offer Mark Stavish's article as well as some of what I did above because, considering the evidence on the ground, they're probably some of the more robust and vetted arguments and observations of what we'd be dealing with if there is any type of trans-personal anything underpinning this. I know a lot of people have a knee-jerk urge to just consider such people self-deluded frauds. For my experience there's enough down in the basement of our own minds that it's not nearly that simple nor is there much reason to believe that what they're doing is either useless or particularly dishonest to any extent. At worst, if its honest inquiry into deeper architecture from a more subjective perspective, it should be yielding similar results to what would be yielded from more objective research just that... well... one difference is that those taking the more subjective approach will be making experiments and getting results/reactions that those of the more objective persuasion wouldn't have a basis for going toward unless they were pursuing hypotheses provided by the works of people on that end.

Not sure if that helps build any bridges for further dialog or if it sounds too CYA to be trusted. I do think certain controversies in the language of this stuff are bound to occur because people will be exploring the so-called paranormal/supernatural and since they're in such abstract territory you'll see people using different language - ie. language of the mystical, language of logic/philosophy/psychology, sometimes alternations and switch-overs, or 'as if' analogies. That has me in a position where when I read these articles I'm really trying to read between the lines. On one side, with long discourses on Hindu, Buddhist, and Hermetic philosophy I'm considering that there's more metaphor to physiological process than the way it's actually stated and, OTOH, with more purely scientific studies I understand that the more purely subjective component is getting understated simply for the lack of place for it in what's under analysis.

Good question. It is a well known fact that our minds will recall events that have meaning for us personally, but fail to recall a very large percentage of the "misses" that occur when it comes to matching what was "predicted" with what eventually came to pass. It's simple confirmation bias.

Life is so horrendously complex, there being so much that is happening around the world every second of every day, and it is so interconnected, and there are only so many ways that things can happen, being as they are determined by the laws of physics, that I would be genuinely surprised if things like this did not happen occasionally to some people. It's coincidence.

Precisely!

Being it's like that I think it means that, if one's going to consider the possibility that something's a premonition or meaningful synchronicity, they probably need a conjunction of at least three exceptional events at the same time - not just two. If it's two you more easily end up in the territory that shlaifu was talking about - ie. assigning divine or higher causes to things that statistically don't quite merit it.