A Guy In Spain Dreamed The Pope Would Be Named Francis A Month Ago

[EricinLA]

Tweeted on February 11th, 2013 that "My boyfriend woke up last night at 4am saying q had dreamed of a new Pope called 'Francis I' and Benedict resignation today." Click here to see the article ---> A Guy In Spain Dreamed The Pope Would Be Named Francis A Month Ago What do guys think? I know I have had dreams that came true days, months or years later. I dreamed my mom was sitting alone at my wedding and couldn't find my dad. I dreamed this right after I got engaged and it was a year before the wedding. My dad died of advanced pancreatic cancer that was just diagnosed 3 months earlier. I dreamed about this 6 months before the cancer was found.

[Zoth]

My opinion: Situation 1 (the pope): One sentence. About an event that happened to other person. Who is spanish...and dreamed about the 4th most common spanish name. And above all that: I'm sure Pope wouldn't resign and tell the media all in a interval of around 8 hours (which is around the space of time between the tweet and the first news about the resignation). So one thing is clear: he didn't had any precognition dream about the pope resigning. At most, he had one about it showing up in the news. Situation 2 (yours): You dreamed that your mom was looking for your father in your wedding. Just after you got engaged. You had a dream with an anxiety theme, the most common type of dream. You didn't dream about cancer, or death. You just dreamed that one person was missing. How is it safe to say that these are precognitions and not coincidences? Coincidences like this happen in the thousands every day due the natural characteristics of our dream content. On what basis do we rule out coincidence in this case? Careful analysis or unreliable intuition?

[EricinLA]

My opinion: Situation 1 (the pope): One sentence. About an event that happened to other person. Who is spanish...and dreamed about the 4th most common spanish name. And above all that: I'm sure Pope wouldn't resign and tell the media all in a interval of around 8 hours (which is around the space of time between the tweet and the first news about the resignation). So one thing is clear: he didn't had any precognition dream about the pope resigning. At most, he had one about it showing up in the news. How is it safe to say that these are precognitions and not coincidences? Coincidences like this happen in the thousands every day due the natural characteristics of our dream content. On what basis do we rule out coincidence in this case? Careful analysis or unreliable intuition? Zoth00, Did you read the article I attached??? The guy dreamed 1 month before the Pope Resigned. That the Pope was going to Resign and his replacement would be named "Frances I". I think only one other Pope in history has resigned/retired. Plus the guy named the new Pope. Way too much to be a coincidence...

[Zoth]

Did you read the article I attached??? Yes... The guy dreamed 1 month before the Pope Resigned. That the Pope was going to Resign No. He did not state that the pope was going to resign. I'm portuguese and have a easy time understanding spanish language, so please tell where have you read in that tweet that he dreamed that the pope was going to resign. The tweet says exactly this: My boyfriend woke up at 4am saying that he had dreamed about a new pope called "Francisco I" and today the new pope resigns! Date: february 11th, the same day the pope announced his resignation. This just to show that there is no prediction about a resignation, and that he had the dream after the pope decided to resign. Which leaves us with only a name of a new pope. And in case of such delicate subjects, like precognition dreams, you have to work with exactly you're given. Even though we can probably infer that he dreamed with a pope resignation, inferring that does not count as a fact. But still, that does not invalidate any other points. And it's quite a fallacy saying that just because it seems too much to be a coincidence, it can't be a coincidence. Well, guess what, it can. Especially because we go into a statistical analysis of coincidences on these dreams, the sample is so huge that the probability of coincidence is much higher than you think.Literally, there's so many creepy coincidences happening every day related to dreams, why would you think this is another situation? Because it seems "too much to be a coincidence"?

[hurricane1124]

Yes... No. He did not state that the pope was going to resign. I'm portuguese and have a easy time understanding spanish language, so please tell where have you read in that tweet that he dreamed that the pope was going to resign. The tweet says exactly this: My boyfriend woke up at 4am saying that he had dreamed about a new pope called "Francisco I" and today the new pope resigns! Date: february 11th, the same day the pope announced his resignation. This just to show that there is no prediction about a resignation, and that he had the dream after the pope decided to resign. Which leaves us with only a name of a new pope. And in case of such delicate subjects, like precognition dreams, you have to work with exactly you're given. Even though we can probably infer that he dreamed with a pope resignation, inferring that does not count as a fact. But still, that does not invalidate any other points. And it's quite a fallacy saying that just because it seems too much to be a coincidence, it can't be a coincidence. Well, guess what, it can. Especially because we go into a statistical analysis of coincidences on these dreams, the sample is so huge that the probability of coincidence is much higher than you think.Literally, there's so many creepy coincidences happening every day related to dreams, why would you think this is another situation? Because it seems "too much to be a coincidence"? What are you talking about? The time of the tweet was 5:06 A.M. Spain time. That is 5 hours ahead of the U.S. The tweet was before he announced his resignation announcement. That means the name was predicted and the resignation which hasn't happened in hundreds of years.

[Zoth]

What are you talking about? The time of the tweet was 5:06 A.M. Spain time. That is 5 hours ahead of the U.S. The tweet was before he announced his resignation announcement. I'm talking about the fact the fact that the boyfriend: - Didn't state anything about him having dreamed about any resignation; - Had the dream (most likely) AFTER the pope decided to resign. Deciding to Resign as a pope and announcing his intention of resigning is not something you do in a space of a couple hours. Besides, the statement that he dreamed about it 1 month before the pope resigned is not relevant to the discussion, because in the subject of precognition, we only care about the information coming to the subject's knowledge, which was the announcement of resignation. I think you're missing the point of the argument.

[Artemidorus]

ish[/B]...and dreamed about the 4th most common spanish name Yes, well, James or William may be common English names, but not very common papal names. I don't think anyone would have guessed Francis, would they? he's the first, after all - when was the last time a pope chose a completely new name? (I'm not counting John Paul, since it obviously referred to the two predecessors)

[Zoth]

Yup, you're misinterpreting the argument The tweet was BEFORE the announcement, yes indeed it was. However, for purposes of precognition, you cannot say the acknowledgement of the information happened BEFORE the event. Got it? Because it's far more likely that the pope had designed to resign before the day in which he talked to the media. That's the point that is being made. She said "pope resignation today". That is still a hefty prediction and also combined with the heftiness of the prediction of the name. Now your misinterpreting what she said. "Benedicto renuncia" means literally "Benedicto resigns", not "resignation today" as something that the boyfriend has dreamed. Even though it may be a question of semantics, it's important to point it out otherwise the "pope resigns" would be considered another prediction, which is not. Also Do you consider the odds of this happening. This is the problem with statistical analysis a lot. The odds of flipping a coin and it landing on tails 5 trillion times in a row are out of this world and you can not even fathom this happening, but it is nonetheless POSSIBLE. You seem to have disregarded my previous post. I do consider it: assume that these events were as rare as 1 in 1 million. They would still (and do) account for the thousands every day. It's not a problem with statistical analysis, is merely the representation of the real sample, which is much bigger than many people think. The real question here is, at what point do you dismiss the possibility of being a coincidence? If so many similar situations are excused by it, what makes this one different? it is important to look at just huge odds in general happening over and over again with dreams like this. Yes, huge odds. In like, when you take into consideration the nature of dream content and the sample (the human population), the WEIRD thing would be if these coincidences did not arise. It is not irrelevant that human perception and memory are subject to so many biases, especially when we include the realm of dreams. I once had a dream that i was putting on a golf course. The next day I putted in the EXACT same way and nothing was different at all. That is just unreasonable. How can anyone here agree or disagree with your claim if we have no independent access to the facts and details? That's like saying: I once gave a huge scream and a person felt in front of me. Imagine that you didn't realize that the girl felt due stepping into a rock. If you had told us simply your version of the events (I gave a huge scream and a person felt in front of me), we would have no chance to consider the fact that she tripped due a rock, and not due the loudness of your scream. As you see, when you label an event as supernatural (like the case of precognition) just because it happens many times, you're misinterpreting evidence, making invalid causal connections (correlation does not imply causation), and eliminating loads of alternatives that are just as much or even more valid than yours. It is not saying that you're wrong, but merely asserting that you're version of the facts is subjective, thus it cannot be considered evidence for a supernatural phenomenon. Please notice that this is not a "new" news: loads of these stories are around in the media, who has a vast interest on publishing them as sensationalist. Yes, well, James or William may be common English names, but not very common papal names. I don't think anyone would have guessed Francis, would they? he's the first, after all - when was the last time a pope chose a completely new name? (I'm not counting John Paul, since it obviously referred to the two predecessors) Good point! The deal is in a dream, your mind is not worried if the pope name is logic or common. Dreams work primarily with memories, and in the case of this boyfriend, the common memory was a name. You could literally dream with a president named "Obama don Juan" just as easily. Besides, if even you think that no one could have guessed the name Francisco, a name that is deeply enraized in the spanish culture, in what basis would you put the precognition explanation over the "coincidence" dream one ? If you think about it, it does seem much more plausible that the name popped due a coincidence/dream memory than something specific like a guess of a pope's name.

[hurricane1124]

I do not want to quote all of that so I will start fresh. Despite all you have just said, I still completely disagree (but not 100 %). Odds are kind of man made. Numbers can go on forever, that means you can make the odds of something happening as unlikely as you want, so yes you can say anything is coincidence. The problem is where you draw the line. I am not citing anything supernatural, just that in the vastness of constant associations that can be made with the mind and events that people go through near that time, maybe it is very possible for us to see random things before they happen. Again, EVERYTHING can be seen as coincidence. Where do you drawn the line???? Where? If someone were to record 11 things that they saw in a dream, than would it still be a coincidence that Every single one of these things happened. The answer is YES, but most likely no. This is kind of where you have to draw the line. Yes, it may very well have been a coincidence that the guy predicted the name because you can say that ANYTHING that happens is. The thing that is far more likely is that there is something else going on (not necessarily supernatural and I really don't like this word). 99 % (not saying 100 in leway of argument) of everything happens for a reason in the infinite vastness of the indirect events that occur beforehand. It is truly impossible to draw the line in some cases, so you have to start making assumptions based off the percentages of things that happen for a reason. The coincidence doesn't lie in that the dream occurred, it lies in that the events happen and that they are separate from the dream. The last thing is what you said. You said " Yes, huge odds. In like, when you take into consideration the nature of dream content and the sample (the human population), the WEIRD thing would be if these coincidences did not arise". This is simply not true. If I have 7 dreams a night times by 365, I would have 2555 dreams per year. Most of us have a very daily routine. The exactness of some of these dreams is too real to just say that the connection between real life and your dream content is just coincidence. Again, anything can be just a coincidence and odds are unlimited, You HAVE to draw a line based on the overwhelming percentage of things that happen for a reason (especially when faced with such a high percentage of dreams that are so exact compared to real life and some of the daily routines that we all have). 0.005 percent is a HUGE percentage in the big scheme of things.

[Zoth]

Interesting points you made, let me try not to get lost in my reply ^^ Numbers can go on forever, that means you can make the odds of something happening as unlikely as you want, so yes you can say anything is coincidence. This is one fail of reasoning that you show throughout your post. Coincidence is not just based on probability, so arguing that numbers can go forever is not a valid way of stating that everything is a coincidence. First of all, numbers do not go forever. Take an example with a sample of 10 people: closed sample, that's it. Second, and most importantly, coincidences are events that possess no apparent causal connection, even if it's perceived that they do. By your logic, the fact that a person dies due getting a bullet in the head could be a coincidence if we wanted to. It could, but it isn't. Why? Because there's a very clear and obvious causal connection: the bullet provoked lesions in the brain tissue which caused the subject to die. Yes, it may very well have been a coincidence that the guy predicted the name because you can say that ANYTHING that happens is. No. I'll give you a simple quoted example: when we happen to observe two events that somehow share come common characteristic, despite having no direct causal connection, we call the shared characteristic of the two events a coincidence. If I meet someone at a party and find out that we share the same birthday, what we mean by calling that situation coincidental is that our being together at that moment was theresult of chance, not necessity. Therefore, to say two events are not coincidental means that despite the apparent lack of causal connection between them, there was some underlying cause that made it necessary for the events to happen just as they did. Understand it now? Let's analyse another of proving something is not a coincidence: Imagine the claim that humans survive by ingesting food and water. Now remove the water and food: no humans are shown to survive. Sure we can get a 10k people or 1million people sample, but it's not coincidental when they die of starvation and lack of water. Why not? Because we've shown that is there was a necessity in order to verify the state of things (in this case, you had to have water and food in order to see humans surviving). The exactness of some of these dreams is too real to just say that the connection between real life and your dream content is just coincidence We're not stating it is coincidence. We're stating it can just be coincidence. If we verify the same event in the boyfriend let's say, 50 times, then odds start stacking against chance. Because the probability of such happening starts becoming so low that it starts to indicates a causal connection. You may think it's remarkable to think that it is not a coincidence that the guy guessed the event, or the event took place after the boyfriend dreamed with it, but you're ignoring the logic of probability by ignoring the thousands of events that the boyfriend did not predict. I suggest you check this video, it has many good arguments about this particular subject. The thing that stands is you can't rule out chance and cause just because you think odds are "man made". This is simply not true. If I have 7 dreams a night times by 365, I would have 2555 dreams per year. Most of us have a very daily routine. The exactness of some of these dreams is too real to just say that the connection between real life and your dream content is just coincidence. Pay close attention to the video, this argument you exposed is extremely flawed, because you're only stating specified predictions, which was not the case AT ALL in the OP's post. PS: Where do you drawn the line???? Where? This was a very good question that I was having quite some trouble to answer. Then I finally realized: first comes the coincidence (no causal relation between variables). Only when you try to claim it is not a coincidence that you need to claim what is the causal relation. So, so to speak, the burden of proof relies on those that claim there's a meaning/it wasn't due random chance that the events relate, aka, dream precognition apologists.

[Sageous]

I'm a little late, as usual, but: Here's another thought, guys: Has anyone considered the no doubt millions of premonitions about the pope that never come true? I'll bet they occur regularly, and even are occasionally tweeted. My point is that when you're dealing with a person as popular as the pope, you're going to have many, many people having premonitions about him happening regularly (probably happens to folks like Beyonce, too). Most of them will be wrong, but probability suggests that eventually someone's going to get one right. What is that cliche? Park a monkey in front of a typewriter long enough, and he'll write shakespeare? I think this is similar, and might tie into what Zoth has been explaining. Sure, it might have been a premonition, defying all known laws of space and time (that would be very cool), or it could have been a pure coincidence sourced in random chance, or it could have simply been the one voice out of thousands shouting individual unrelated things that happened to get it right. Though the first is the most fun, the last, by any measure, is the most likely... shouldn't it at least be considered?

[hurricane1124]

I'm a little late, as usual, but: Here's another thought, guys: Has anyone considered the no doubt millions of premonitions about the pope that never come true? I'll bet they occur regularly, and even are occasionally tweeted. My point is that when you're dealing with a person as popular as the pope, you're going to have many, many people having premonitions about him happening regularly (probably happens to folks like Beyonce, too). Most of them will be wrong, but probability suggests that eventually someone's going to get one right. What is that cliche? Park a monkey in front of a typewriter long enough, and he'll write shakespeare? I think this is similar, and might tie into what Zoth has been explaining. Sure, it might have been a premonition, defying all known laws of space and time (that would be very cool), or it could have been a pure coincidence sourced in random chance, or it could have simply been the one voice out of thousands shouting individual unrelated things that happened to get it right. Though the first is the most fun, the last, by any measure, is the most likely... shouldn't it at least be considered? A premonition isn't something that has to necessarily defy any laws of space and time.

[hurricane1124]

Interesting points you made, let me try not to get lost in my reply ^^ This is one fail of reasoning that you show throughout your post. Coincidence is not just based on probability, so arguing that numbers can go forever is not a valid way of stating that everything is a coincidence. First of all, numbers do not go forever. Take an example with a sample of 10 people: closed sample, that's it. Second, and most importantly, coincidences are events that possess no apparent causal connection, even if it's perceived that they do. By your logic, the fact that a person dies due getting a bullet in the head could be a coincidence if we wanted to. It could, but it isn't. Why? Because there's a very clear and obvious causal connection: the bullet provoked lesions in the brain tissue which caused the subject to die. No. I'll give you a simple quoted example: when we happen to observe two events that somehow share come common characteristic, despite having no direct causal connection, we call the shared characteristic of the two events a coincidence. If I meet someone at a party and find out that we share the same birthday, what we mean by calling that situation coincidental is that our being together at that moment was theresult of chance, not necessity. Therefore, to say two events are not coincidental means that despite the apparent lack of causal connection between them, there was some underlying cause that made it necessary for the events to happen just as they did. Understand it now? Let's analyse another of proving something is not a coincidence: Imagine the claim that humans survive by ingesting food and water. Now remove the water and food: no humans are shown to survive. Sure we can get a 10k people or 1million people sample, but it's not coincidental when they die of starvation and lack of water. Why not? Because we've shown that is there was a necessity in order to verify the state of things (in this case, you had to have water and food in order to see humans surviving). We're not stating it is coincidence. We're stating it can just be coincidence. If we verify the same event in the boyfriend let's say, 50 times, then odds start stacking against chance. Because the probability of such happening starts becoming so low that it starts to indicates a causal connection. You may think it's remarkable to think that it is not a coincidence that the guy guessed the event, or the event took place after the boyfriend dreamed with it, but you're ignoring the logic of probability by ignoring the thousands of events that the boyfriend did not predict. I suggest you check this video, it has many good arguments about this particular subject. The thing that stands is you can't rule out chance and cause just because you think odds are "man made". Pay close attention to the video, this argument you exposed is extremely flawed, because you're only stating specified predictions, which was not the case AT ALL in the OP's post. PS: This was a very good question that I was having quite some trouble to answer. Then I finally realized: first comes the coincidence (no causal relation between variables). Only when you try to claim it is not a coincidence that you need to claim what is the causal relation. So, so to speak, the burden of proof relies on those that claim there's a meaning/it wasn't due random chance that the events relate, aka, dream precognition apologists. I am trying to make it seem more likely that premonitions do exist through my reasoning, not the opposite. I said that you could see anything as a coincidence if you really wanted to as a reference to what you said on your previous post. This situation may have very well been a coincidence, however as I have analyzed other dreams scenarios from myself and others, I have come to a conclusion that premonitions do very much exist. However, I do not like them being seen as a thing that is so mysterious and that defies any "laws". This is because for this to exist there would also have to be causation. Everything needs explanation and full causation (not a coincidental tone every single time). I hope that soon premonitions can be looked at in this way. Too many things are re-examined for evidence when we know they are occurring and that there is a causation. When this happens too often, you start re-examining a quite high percentage of other things as well. Of course this can go in the opposite direction as well! In the case of premonitions, I think that people are a little disillusioned at this point on whether they exist. A big part of this is the spiritual vibe that they are being given by too many people. Babies can dream in the womb. That means that there are physiological processes going on already that allow babies to see images and or sounds. It proves that you do not need to necessarily witness or have any beforehand knowledge of an event to dream about it. Penguins know where to journey EXACTLY when they are born. They do not even need assistance. This means that the penguins' physiological processes (guided by sight), allow them to know where they need to go to survive. The penguins will then recognize the area when they arrive. Last example is classical conditioning. This is such an extremely simple concept and an obvious one, yet it was glorified as extremely new when it was first put into people's mindsets as a cognitive thought. The question becomes how much longer are premonitions by all different people; from deaths of family members to such exactness in imagery and setup. There needs to become a point that premonitions are looked at as completely true and reoccurring events by some people.

[Darkmatters]

Hmm - I guess if a person has a lot of dreams and occasionally one of them comes true, then it's kind of a useless skill. I mean, you'd never know which ones might come true and which ones are just random dreams. Kind of underwhelming to tell people "I have precog dreams and like 3% of the time they come true, I just don't know which ones it will be.. " I don't exactly see family and friends flocking to somebody and asking them what's going to happen with a success rate like that. Or worse yet "This one time I dreamed something and it ended up coming true!!" Ok, so what? that happens to everybody, Unless you wake up KNOWING that it's going to come true, and every time you wake up with that feeling it always does come true, then it doesn't do anybody any good.

[hurricane1124]

Hmm - I guess if a person has a lot of dreams and occasionally one of them comes true, then it's kind of a useless skill. I mean, you'd never know which ones might come true and which ones are just random dreams. Kind of underwhelming to tell people "I have precog dreams and like 3% of the time they come true, I just don't know which ones it will be.. " I don't exactly see family and friends flocking to somebody and asking them what's going to happen with a success rate like that. Or worse yet "This one time I dreamed something and it ended up coming true!!" Ok, so what? that happens to everybody, Unless you wake up KNOWING that it's going to come true, and every time you wake up with that feeling it always does come true, then it doesn't do anybody any good. There may be a way to use this advantageously one day by doing further studying, but that is irrelevant. The way you are explaining these dreams is like saying that regular or lucid dreams are pointless as well and don't do anybody any good. This is simply not true. Of course there may not be much benefits outside of the dream world for lucid dreams, regular dreams, or precognitive dreams. Dreams bring pleasure or fear, etc. Typically people really fear or find awe in any type of dream. I understand your point, but it seems like you are trying to make it sound like these types of dreams are much less pleasurable or fearful as any other dream. If anything they are more fascinating and bring more awe to people (lucid dreams still top them though ^_^).

[Darkmatters]

The way you are explaining these dreams is like saying that regular or lucid dreams are pointless as well and don't do anybody any good. Really? How so? Regular and lucid dreams don't require actually being able to predict things in waking life with accuracy in order to be effective. If all you're concerned with is being able to say "oh yeah, I dreamed this would happen once" after something happens then no problem - I've had dreams of things that eventually happened (but I didn't consider them anything but either coincidence or dreaming of things that are likely to happen or maybe the way I hope - or fear - they might happen and it ended up going that way by sheer chance). What I Mean is - how many other precog dreams did this Spanish guy have, and did they all come true, or a significant percentage of them? If not then it's just one isolated incident that's more likely just random chance. It's like calling a coin flip and being right sometimes - it happens to everybody! The problem is - you don't know if you're going to be right or not until AFTER reality bears it out. Retroactive precognition - kind of an oxymoron, isnt it?

[hurricane1124]

Really? How so? Regular and lucid dreams don't require actually being able to predict things in waking life with accuracy in order to be effective. If all you're concerned with is being able to say "oh yeah, I dreamed this would happen once" after something happens then no problem - I've had dreams of things that eventually happened (but I didn't consider them anything but either coincidence or dreaming of things that are likely to happen or maybe the way I hope - or fear - they might happen and it ended up going that way by sheer chance). What I Mean is - how many other precog dreams did this Spanish guy have, and did they all come true, or a significant percentage of them? If not then it's just one isolated incident that's more likely just random chance. It's like calling a coin flip and being right sometimes - it happens to everybody! The problem is - you don't know if you're going to be right or not until AFTER reality bears it out. Retroactive precognition - kind of an oxymoron, isnt it? That wasn't the point of what I was saying. I was just citing the experience of the dreams. I'm aware of that and the coin example is true but that is referencing far better odds and wasn't relevant to what i was saying. Nonetheless I understand your point.

[Darkmatters]

That wasn't the point of what I was saying... wasn't relevant to what i was saying. As I asked in my last post, how so? Just repeating "that isn't relevant" doesn't explain. What value do precog dreams have unless they predict events more accurately than random chance? I was just citing the experience of the dreams. The experience of the dreams? Well, that sounds like exactly what I was talking about when I said : If all you're concerned with is being able to say "oh yeah, I dreamed this would happen once" after something happens then no problem - I've had dreams of things that eventually happened.. .. Just your own personal satisfaction of being able to say "Hey, I dreamed this would happen!" - ie the experience of it. But you didn't dream that you KNEW it was going to happen, only dreamed of it happening, with nothing to differenciate it from an ordinary dream, so you would know "this one is precognitive". That's the only value a precog dream would have unless they actually show themselves to be more effective in predicting events than random chance AND they mark themselves as being different from ordinary dreams so people know when to pay attention to them. But even if all you care about is the experience. you still don't know which dreams will come true until after they do. In what way is it anything more than considering the probability of a future event, just as we all do in waking life frequently? Sometimes we're right, sometimes we're wrong, and we don't know which until after the event occurs.

[Zoth]

Eek, so many flawed arguments 0o however as I have analyzed other dreams scenarios from myself and others, I have come to a conclusion that premonitions do very much exist. And how did you do your analysis? It isn't enough to say that you reached a certain conclusion in your own, you still can't give a straight foward answer to my previous argument in which I pointed out that experience is not necessarily enough to prove that something exists, as there can be inumerous flaws in your perception/memory. By your logic, I watched 5 superman movies, and I have come to a conclusion that superman does very much exist A big part of this is the spiritual vibe that they are being given by too many people. And you claim this on the basis of....? You're making all these claims without even taking the time to explain them. Babies can dream in the womb. That means that there are physiological processes going on already that allow babies to see images and or sounds. It proves that you do not need to necessarily witness or have any beforehand knowledge of an event to dream about it. Someone hasn't done their research...Just because babies can feel sensations in the womb does not mean that you can dream about something before you have no knowledge it exists. Studies indicate that babies enter in REM sleep yes, but no one can affirm what they dream about. The general theory is that they dream with the sounds that come from the outside the womb or the images from inside the womb. You have no information about what they dream, and you're already stating that something you don't know prove something. Penguins know where to journey EXACTLY when they are born. They do not even need assistance. This means that the penguins' physiological processes (guided by sight), allow them to know where they need to go to survive. The penguins will then recognize the area when they arrive. Another fallacy xD! This doesn't say anything about precognition dreams and it's so irrelevant to the discussion that I'm not even gonna bother getting into the roots of this one. Last example is classical conditioning. What? Are you talking about sensory preconditioning? Because nothing in classical conditioning has to do with precognition. You have to explain what you mean. It just seems you are rehearsing your own prejudices, without really considerating any arguments that have been presented to counter yours.

[hurricane1124]

Eek, so many flawed arguments 0o And how did you do your analysis? It isn't enough to say that you reached a certain conclusion in your own, you still can't give a straight foward answer to my previous argument in which I pointed out that experience is not necessarily enough to prove that something exists, as there can be inumerous flaws in your perception/memory. By your logic, I watched 5 superman movies, and I have come to a conclusion that superman does very much exist And you claim this on the basis of....? You're making all these claims without even taking the time to explain them. Someone hasn't done their research...Just because babies can feel sensations in the womb does not mean that you can dream about something before you have no knowledge it exists. Studies indicate that babies enter in REM sleep yes, but no one can affirm what they dream about. The general theory is that they dream with the sounds that come from the outside the womb or the images from inside the womb. You have no information about what they dream, and you're already stating that something you don't know prove something. Another fallacy xD! This doesn't say anything about precognition dreams and it's so irrelevant to the discussion that I'm not even gonna bother getting into the roots of this one. What? Are you talking about sensory preconditioning? Because nothing in classical conditioning has to do with precognition. You have to explain what you mean, you're not making any sense Okay haha ^_^ I was trying to make a couple comparisons to a couple things related to precognitive dreaming and then asking questions on topics that were related to the said topics of the said topics created by the second said topics (nm). I should've explained those statements as well but didn't feel like getting into them. Also I know that experience alone isn't enough for something to actually exist by a long shot, but for a lot of things yes. You can't know if a precognitive dream is necessarily a coincidence. All I said is that with everything i have seen and put together with several other precog dreams, I have personally concluded yes. I was making a statement citing that based on the experiences thing.

[Darkmatters]

You can't know if a precognitive dream is necessarily a coincidence. Glad to see you've come around!

[JoannaB]

Is it going to be proof that I am precognitive if after reading this thread I dream of precognitive penguins, and I will have written this post beforehand? Sorry, just a thought I had. And I really hope that I will actually dream of precognitive penguins, and that my mind will recognize this, and allow me to become lucid. Precognition is just such a hard thing to prove. It would be cool if it were real. But alas coincidence is often a viable explanation or there are other viable explanations, and if there is a possible explanation that does not require a supernatural occurrence, then while it does not prove that nothing supernatural could have happened, but it does prove that the supernatural did not necessarily happen, and thus there is no proof for the supernatural there.

[TwoCrystalCups]

Yes this was a prediction dream of a new pope, not about the resignation. Dreams tell you short stories, not all of the story behind the dream meaning. I'm just confused on how she said "resignation today", if it was part of the dream or when the pope resigned? Francis is also a french name, and i'm glad the pope decided to work for the poor, too bad he's in his 70s.

[Zoth]

Yes this was a prediction dream of a new pope, not about the resignation. Dreams tell you short stories, not all of the story behind the dream meaning. I'm just confused on how she said "resignation today", if it was part of the dream or when the pope resigned? Francis is also a french name, and i'm glad the pope decided to work for the poor, too bad he's in his 70s. She didn't say resignation today, she said "pope resigns", as in to point out the apparent connection between the dream and the events after. As to the short stories, that characteristic of dream points nowhere to precognition. There's at least 3 or 4 theories about the function/value of dreams, and still no one can reach a conclusion in whether they hold any value for us. The fact that other animals dreams, and that dream recall isn't inherently present in us make pretty good arguments against any "practical" value.

[JoannaB]

She didn't say resignation today, she said "pope resigns", as in to point out the apparent connection between the dream and the events after. As to the short stories, that characteristic of dream points nowhere to precognition. There's at least 3 or 4 theories about the function/value of dreams, and still no one can reach a conclusion in whether they hold any value for us. The fact that other animals dreams, and that dream recall isn't inherently present in us make pretty good arguments against any "practical" value. I think that that's a very pro-homo sapient biased viewpoint you got there. Why shouldn't other animals experience dreams for practical value reasons? For that matter we have no proof that other animals are not much smarter and much more advanced than we give them credit for. It has been established that octopus for example are extremely intelligent even when evaluated by human criteria of intelligence, and yet we know that their intelligence is very different from ours with many goals we would not understand because we are human. Who are we to say that an octopus dream does not have even more practical meaning than ours, on the other hand of course we cannot prove scientifically that it does. we can neither prove nor disprove the practical value of dreams for other animals. Since we cannot communicate with them, we cannot ask them about their dreams or what they get or do not get out of them. I wonder whether homo sapiens are the only animal capable of lucid dreaming, maybe we are or maybe we're not, who knows. While we cannot prove it, but I would not dismiss the possibility. Some primates have been taught to speak some, but we have no way of knowing whether they use these human words with the same meaning behind them as we do, and how applicable those words are to them - and that's other apes, let alone animals that are even different from us. I just think it is wrong to assume too much that we are necessarily the only ones, though it would be wrong to also assume that we are not.