Thread: I dreamt of future then proved it to myself!!!!

Originally posted by earthtriber
Listen to be honest this for me is not about proving my self to you.

I know what is true for me......

I'm glad to hear that, but I did not think that you were trying to prove yourself to me. What is \"true for you\" isn't \"true.\" Truth isn't relative, but in your case it would be more of a self-affirmed delusion.

So flex your cynical muscles else where.... people like you may well be holding up some interesting comments from people who this does happen to so sit back relax read it get irritated at the illogical magic of it and deal with it. If you got something useful to add have a crack but why bother being negative?

whether or not this sort of stuff happens to you it happens to me I would love to find out more[/b]

This is a "forum," an exchange of ideas. If you post something irrational and impossible, then get ready to have someone denying your claim. I'm not being "negative" as much as "realistic." There is no scientific proof of those types of dreams whatsoever, so why should I believe in them? Faith? Right...

And yes, that type of stuff DOES happen to me, as a matter of fact. My subconcious comes up with a realistic scenario, and poof, similar things come true. I doubt you'd ever be able to find "more out" about it on any legitimate, scientific websites.

great

Originally posted by earthtriber
great

Nothing else to say?

I am sorry that you do not believe in your fellow man.
I am sorry because earthtriber and I shared experiences that we have had, and I know in my case there are more to share, really intense happenings where our bodies and minds did something extraordinary. And they were real. They influenced me and the way I look at my dreams and at my life. And it is a kind of a scary thing because - you are right - there is no proof. There is no way to scientifically prove what happened to us.
But it did.
And when we say it did - maybe you should listen.
I mean, really - what do you have to lose?
I hope you have one of these experiences, so you can feel what it feels like to know the next moments of your life before they even happen, so you can deal with the inner-freak out associated with feeling something so exceptional, but mostly I hope you have one of them so you don't feel so left out of the loop. Maybe then you can relax and actually HEAR what we are saying to you.
Peace.

Originally posted by Eric Estrada


or perhaps I felt it spoke for itself and I felt there could be enough rational thought left in the world to deny such silly claims as \"pre-cognitive dreams\" - perhaps I was wrong.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=126649

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

Perhaps you were.

they are truly amazing pages well found! how did you come across them?

interestingly some other scientists have opened their minds to the possibility that maybe because they approch their tests and experiments with a idea as to the outcome of results, that prehaps they are infulencing the results a little like manifestation?

it certainly is an amazing world.............

Originally posted by Eric Estrada



And yes, that type of stuff DOES happen to me, as a matter of fact. *My subconcious comes up with a realistic scenario, and poof, similar things come true..

thats very interesting keen to give some examples?

Originally posted by Oneironaut


http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=126649

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/results.html

Perhaps you were. *

Sure, I accept that there is possibility that there is some unexplained science for \"future predicting\" or whatever (but there could just as easily be science of how I could transport a giant purple elephant on top of my house right now, we can't prove wrong what isn't there). But A) that is more scientific, it is in reality. Your dreams are just random messages sent to the brain that are often of meaningful appearance, and it is easy to mistake them from precognitive dreams because of how similar they can be to real life experiences

B) You guys are automatically saying ANY dream that a small thing happens that happens later in real life is precognitive. Now, THAT is being close-minded if you ask me! You aren't open to the possibility that they are not precognitive dreams.

Originally posted by earthtriber


thats very interesting keen to give some examples?

Sure... one time a kid in my school who's been there for a while (my subconcious, as well as yours, is quite intelligent, it can accurately calculate things by viewing them) was in my dream and I asked him is weight and it was like, 101, and that was his weight in real life when I asked him. It is called an "educational" guess if your brain factors in everything (such as the average weight for people of his height/age, average weight of people in the grade, his body mass and what his weight would be), etc. Your subconcious factors all of that in to form a dream where a "prediction" occurs.

Sure, I accept that there is possibility that there is some unexplained science for \"future predicting\" or whatever (but there could just as easily be science of how I could transport a giant purple elephant on top of my house right now, we can't prove wrong what isn't there). But A) that is more scientific, it is in reality. Your dreams are just random messages sent to the brain that are often of meaningful appearance, and it is easy to mistake them from precognitive dreams because of how similar they can be to real life experiences [/b]

A) That your dreams are just random messages sent to the brain (implying that they absolutely Can Not be influenced by, possibly unexplained occurances) is not Fact. Simply the Fact that you said you concede to the "possibility" of such things proves this. The only reason I posted those articles (besides the fact that I think they are interesting as hell) is that you tend to take a sort of "anyone who believes in the possibility of this stuff is Moronic" attitude, which is, in my opinion, unwarranted.

B) I love the whole "You can't prove a negative" saying that most skeptics use. Like much other rhetoric, it is hardly true beyond the purpose of Effect Only.

"We can't prove there Aren't ghosts in the world. YOu can't disprove a negative."
"We can't prove there Aren't mental abilities possible. You can't disprove a negative."
"Can't disprove a negative."

Really? Here is a bag of M&M's. Prove there Isn't a black M&M in there.

Of course you can prove a negative, you just have to have the materials to do so. If you can Open the bag of M&M's, you can prove there is no black one.
A lot of things mainstream science says is "impossible" may simply be Impossible to Detect as of Now. The first article makes a very poignant (sp) statement about how many mainstream scientists are getting the same reactions but refusing to reveal findings publicly as of yet.
As understandable as this is, I think it goes to show that many people (especially those that run in scientific circles) are quick to downplay the possibility of something that seems far-fetched, in fear of seeming like the crack-pots they are so quick to label if they start to display that they believe the unbelievable might be true, even if the Possiblity is More Than Apparent.

I don't think anyone here is saying that All dreams that seem precog Are. Maybe the fact that I've had limited time to read every post on the thread is misleading me. To me, it seems that this is perfectly legitimate conversation on the Possibility of these things. One that, especially, doesn't warrant insults from people that later concede to things, that they were earlier ridiculing, as possible, no?

Originally posted by earthtriber
they are truly amazing pages well found! how did you come across them? *

Thanks Another Dream Views member has a thread open, about it. If I had time (i'm at work) I'd find it again and link to it. But I think it's in the Beyond Dreaming section

Originally posted by Oneironaut

Sure, I accept that there is possibility that there is some unexplained science for \"future predicting\" or whatever (but there could just as easily be science of how I could transport a giant purple elephant on top of my house right now, we can't prove wrong what isn't there). But A) that is more scientific, it is in reality. Your dreams are just random messages sent to the brain that are often of meaningful appearance, and it is easy to mistake them from precognitive dreams because of how similar they can be to real life experiences

A) That your dreams are just random messages sent to the brain (implying that they absolutely Can Not be influenced by, possibly unexplained) occurances is not Fact. Simply the Fact that you said you concede to the \"possibility\" of such things proves this. The only reason I posted those articles (besides the fact that I think they are interesting as hell) is that you tend to take a sort of \"anyone who believes in the possibility of this stuff is Moronic\" attitude, which is, in my opinion, unwarranted.

[/b]

You are misquoting me. I actually said \"believing these things based on faith and belief alone is moronic.\" I believe in the POSSIBILITY of these things, because there is a \"possibility\" for everything. I said its not moronic to believe in the possibility. Also, the action itself is moronic, not the person. Dreaming is not an \"exact\" science. Some scientists theorize its just your brain analyzing the days events, some believe its just a completely random way how your body interprets nerve activity, some think its a big deep message from the subconcious.

B) I love the whole \"You can't prove a negative\" saying that most skeptics use. Like much other rhetoric, it is hardly true beyond the purpose of Effect Only.

\"We can't prove there Aren't ghosts in the world. YOu can't disprove a negative.\"
\"We can't prove there Aren't mental abilities possible. You can't disprove a negative.\"
\"Can't disprove a negative.\"

Really? Here is a bag of M&M's. Prove there Isn't a black M&M in there. * *

Of course you can prove a negative, you just have to have the materials to do so. If you can Open the bag of M&M's, you can prove there is no black one.
[/b]

Well, you are clearly demonstrating that you do not understand the actual idea behind it. It's not about \"disproving a negative.\" The M&M deal is different, you can prove there isn't a black m and m in there. You are being silly and naive for denying the logic behind the concept. You can't prove wrong an unfalsifiable claim.
Read this: http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critica...able_claims.htm (quite long, but I bet you'll be a bit more enlightened after it (I think I'll read it too).
It's not about \"disproving a negative\" but disproving something that simply, by its nature, cannot be disproved. The very essence of supernatural things contradicts natural law (hence, SUPERnatural), so you simply can't prove it wrong via reference of pyschics. You can't disprove religion because it can't be disproved. You can also not disprove that there is a giant pink invisible unicorn governing all our actions in the sky and that at the end of the universe lies an enourmous mcdonalds (at least, with our current technology ).

A lot of things mainstream science says is \"impossible\" may simply be Impossible to Detect as of Now. The first article makes a very poignant (sp) statement about how many mainstream scientists are getting the same reactions but refusing to reveal findings publicly as of yet.
As understandable as this is, I think it goes to show that many people (especially those that run in scientific circles) are quick to downplay the possibility of something that seems far-fetched, in fear of seeming like the crack-pots they are so quick to label if they start to display that they believe the unbelievable might be true, even if the Possiblity is More Than Apparent.
[/b]

I'm open-minded, it's not that I'm downplaying the possibility in fear of sounding like a crackpot, rather to keep people from jumping to conclusions. If there is no science behind a claim at all (or worse, it contradicts scientific law), then sure I'll tell people that what they experienced was not what they thought it was. But honestly now, what would be your first reaction if I posted a thread saying how I summoned a polka dotted turtoise in my room with a raise of my big toe. Sure, there's an incredibly miniscule possibility that something like that could happen, but that doesn't mean it did.

I don't think anyone here is saying that All dreams that seem precog Are. Maybe the fact that I've had limited time to read every post on the thread is misleading me. To me, it seems that this is perfectly legitimate conversation on the Possibility of these things. *
[/b]

I don't think that everyone here is saying that. I think, though, people will not accept that you weren't \"somewhat precog\" if you got one or two details right. Sure, it is a legitimate conversation on the possibility of these things, but asking about other people's \"precog experiences\" and learning more about \"precog\" isn't the most legitimate conversation.

One that, especially, doesn't warrant insults from people that later concede to things, that they were earlier ridiculing, as possible, no?[/b]

I recognized that there might be some science we don't understand yet, yes. But I was saying that many believe in it by faith and belief alone. And I was not insulting the person, rather the actions.

You are misquoting me. [/b]

I apologize.

Well, you are clearly demonstrating that you do not understand the actual idea behind it. It's not about \"disproving a negative.\" The M&M deal is different, you can prove there isn't a black m and m in there. You are being silly and naive for denying the logic behind the concept. You can't prove wrong an unfalsifiable claim.
Read this: http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critica...able_claims.htm (quite long, but I bet you'll be a bit more enlightened after it (I think I'll read it too).
It's not about \"disproving a negative\" but disproving something that simply, by its nature, cannot be disproved. The very essence of supernatural things contradicts natural law (hence, SUPERnatural), so you simply can't prove it wrong via reference of pyschics. You can't disprove religion because it can't be disproved. You can also not disprove that there is a giant pink invisible unicorn governing all our actions in the sky and that at the end of the universe lies an enourmous mcdonalds (at least, with our current technology Tongue). [/b]

Your last six words took your entire paragraph and made it do nothing more than Agree with what I'd just said.

What most pseudo-skeptics don't seem to understand (and I'm speaking of the braizen, quick to ridicule, Matrixically dodging the evidence that actually Supports outlandish claims Pseudo-Skeptics, not that I'm calling you one.) is that, \"not being able to disprove something\" isn't as matter of fact as it is implied. Of course we can't disprove religion...Now...is this to mean that the burden of proof for the skeptic is any more 'laxed? I wouldn't think so. If we have the Means to find something like that out (who knows what we could do in the future?) then \"you can't disprove religion\" because invalid because we'll have found a way TO disprove religion. Maybe we'll be able to step over the threshold of death, having homed in on the vibratory state of a different realm, and blah blah then the whole arguement of \"you can't disprove something that's not there\" goes out the window.

\"I can't disprove that the world is round. Trust me, it's not.\"

\"I can't disprove that man will fly. Trust me, if we were supposed to fly, God would have given us wings.\"

\"I can't disprove that parents will ever be able to change the sex of their baby, but think about it, that's ludicrous! God chooses what sex your baby is going to be, and him alone.\"

\"I can't disprove that a woman will ever drive indy cars, but it's against everything the IRL stands for. Racing is a men's sport. Always has been, always will be.\"

Every one of these is a misconception that was proven wrong over the course of time and the evolution of man's understanding of True Nature, which is different from the Perceived Nature that is whatever we are experiencing at any Present Time.

They are built around strict adherence to the popular BELIEFS (a scientific Law is Law of what we Perceive through the eyes of science) It takes Faith to conclude that all things can be defined through the current scientific method. You can't argue that fact. Science is a very important tool, but is in no way, whatsoever, Perfect. One should be just as willing to deviate confidently from the path of science, in the face of contradictory evidence, with the stability of mind to be able to weigh the two, and never adhere to one simply on the basis of Comfort, Faith, and Familiarity, however it is the most avid \"critical thinkers\" that are the most guilty of what I'm speaking of.

I'm going to save the critical thinking link and read it throughout the day, while at work, but you gotta do somethin for me.
That link in my Sig. Give it a good read. Another forum member posted it, and I think it is one of the most appropriate posts ever dropped on this place. Heh. You may find it equally \"enlightening.\" 8)

I believe in the POSSIBILITY of these things, because there is a \"possibility\" for everything. I said its not moronic to believe in the possibility.[/b]

Oh yeah, and I agree with you here. I believe it is also moronic to believe that the scientific method Always weilds the correct answer, and it is the universal truth. If this isn't the kind of tone you were taking, it is how it seemed, to me, but it's all good.

I knew you'd say that about "with our current technology." But I made the mistake of giving an example of a falsifiable claim (mcdonalds at the end of the universe). God is an unfalsifiable claim, even with the most advanced science, you can't prove "him" as wrong. You can't use a detection instrument, becuase God can't be detected by his nature. But it is true you can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim. Mcdonalds at the end of the universe isn't one, that was a crude example.

What YOU are saying is that totally out there things with extremely low possibility can be proved as wrong with really advanced technology. The last six words of my paragraph only agreed with you in saying that "yes, falsifiable claims could be proved as false (hence their names). Sure, if you want to be prissy about it, most unfalsifiable claims would be considered falsifiable under your opinion ("I saw a ufo" - if we had technology that could recount someone's visions, sure, but it is silly to refer to technology in such a manner).

But even then, God and the such can simply NOT BE DISPROVED by their very nature. You might find certain paradoxes as incorrect, but to say we'll be able to disprove religion as a whole as incorrect is silly.

Also, for example, you simply cannot prove wrong that you turn pink as you surpass the speed of light. Albert Einstein let us understand this.

I was saying that it is silly to believe in things based on faith and belief alone. I believe in the possibility of most things (a lot of things completely contradict modern psychics such as contradicting laws of motion, albert einstein's laws, etc, so it is silly to be involved in such delusions whatsoever), but everything in the world, excuse me, universe, can be explained by science.

Anyways, to let you know, you might think I'm "avoiding" evidence. Evidence is something that clearly demonstrates a conclusion or fact, crude anecdotes, similarities, and petty delusions are not classified as "evidence" per se. You could say I'm "avoiding" the accounts of people having things happen to them after they've dreamed about it. But many believers are "avoiding" the concept of coincidences and educational guesses.

PS: Sure.

Edit:

Okay I read it... It was somewhat clever satire, but as satire, it is often incorrect. I would go and quote a bunch of it and explain some of it to you, but I don't want to.

For example:

At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence.[/b]

Rather, the irrational is irrational. Evidence in itself is neither rational nor irrational (well, if it is poor evidence than it could be) but it supports rational or irrational ideas. I don't dismiss evidence, as I've said above, virtually everything regarding supernatural powers has very POOR "evidence" (and almost all of the evidence is anecdotal).

"I dreamt of future then proved it to myself!!!!"

I've done this more than once.

A lot of skeptics seem to know that it's just imagination. What they don't realize is that their belief is based on faith alone. It is possible to have proof that preconitive dreams occur. I have proven it at least twice.

Science has not scratched the surface of what consciousness is. We don't even know how a memory is created, let alone recalled. How these skeptics make up their rules for limits of conscious awareness is based on ignorance, not knowledge.

From: \"Zen...and the Art of Debunking\"
Employ \"TCP\": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.[/b]

Eric Estrada wrote:
Okay I read it... It was somewhat clever satire, but as satire, it is often incorrect. [/b]

In the case of this remark, the satire seems to have been correct.

But I’ll bite on this one. At this point, I could either explain how “often” implies a great frequency.

Frequency is the measurement of the number of times that a repeated event occurs per unit time. To calculate the frequency, one fixes a time interval, counts the number of occurrences of the event within that interval, and then divides this count by the length of the time interval. *
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Often[/b]

So this would leave you with the burden of telling me how it was you calculated Every piece of satire ever written, and calculated that more than Half the satirical works ever written, were incorrect.
OR, using a less anal retentive definition of often, I could point out that you are a Human Being, and Human Beings are “often” incorrect. Does this give any less credit to anything you’re saying??

From: \"Zen...and the Art of Debunking\"
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that \"there is no evidence!\" [/b]

Eric Estrada wrote:
Rather, the irrational is irrational. Evidence in itself is neither rational nor irrational (well, if it is poor evidence than it could be) but it supports rational or irrational ideas. I don't dismiss evidence, as I've said above, virtually everything regarding supernatural powers has very POOR \"evidence\" (and almost all of the evidence is anecdotal). [/b]

First off, not only is irrational irrational, it is also Relative, as is rationality itself. What is rational to you in a survival situation, is probably not rational to a four-star general with a black-belt in six forms of martial arts, and vice versa.
Second: that’s two points for satire’s credibility.

Eric Estrada wrote:
Evidence is something that clearly demonstrates a conclusion or fact, crude anecdotes, similarities, and petty delusions are not classified as \"evidence\" per se.[/b]

Evidence demonstrates a fact that leads TO a conclusion. Conclusion and fact are not the same thing. (Damn I think we are getting Way off subject, here. lol) If anecdotes were not evidence, there would be no such thing as “Witness Testimony.” If similarities were not evidence, there would be no such thing as a suspect composite sketch. “Petty Delusion” is a demonstration of a Belief that the person accounting the event is not telling the truth. Nothing more. Your opinion of “Petty Delusion” is someone else’s perception of “Permissible Witness Testimony,” and they are both as relative as rationality.

Eric Estrada wrote:
What YOU are saying is that totally out there things with extremely low possibility can be proved as wrong with really advanced technology. The last six words of my paragraph only agreed with you in saying that \"yes, falsifiable claims could be proved as false (hence their names). Sure, if you want to be prissy about it, most unfalsifiable claims would be considered falsifiable under your opinion (\"I saw a ufo\" - if we had technology that could recount someone's visions, sure, but it is silly to refer to technology in such a manner). [/b]

Now you’re misquoting me. I said it is Possible that these things could be disproved with technology, just as they Could be proven through meditation. (Assuming they already Aren’t, on a personal level.) I never said advanced technology Can prove these things wrong, as if it is prophesized. Your huge McDonald’s and God are one and the same thing, in terms of falsifiable and not. “Unfalsifiable” is an opinion. Not only is it an opinion, but it is an opinion based on the implication that you have an understanding of All Nature – Existence, in every sense of the word – and that we as humans have cracked the code to perceiving all things there are in the universe to perceive, which is, I’m sorry, Faith Based.

You mention Einstein. Think about string theory, which is growing more and more popular in mainstream science. Take into consideration the theory that these proposed dimensions maintain themselves through vibratory states. Is it not becoming more and more conceivable, through science, that these dimensions could vibrate to and from contact with one another? Is not the human brain based on waves that fluctuate through different vibratory states? Doesn’t it often fluctuate involuntarily? Who is to say, as absolute fact, that consciousness could not find it’s way into vibratory harmony, by accident? Sure it may be Unlikely (by someone’s opinion) but to call the notion Silly, or otherwise ridiculous, is to show your bias toward popular scientific dogma, unless you have Proof (not Evidence) on hand, that you are right, and the person bringing the metaphysical into question is “silly.” Who is to say that those who’ve “experienced God and/or Satan” haven’t had acute exposure to these vibratory states, and further conclude that our notion of Heaven, Hell, or even God is not derived, possibly by actual contact with the close-pitch vibratory dimensions that may surround us??
Unlikely? That depends on who you’re asking. Silly? Moronic? That’s relative as well, and should not be presented to Any listener in the authorative tone of Fact.

Now that we’ve gone and bombed the hell out of this thread, (lol) let’s get back to why we even started running our mouths. Hehe.

Eric Estrada wrote:
Coincedence.[/b]

We are now a Far Cry away from your original post. (Which was the intention behind calling you out on it. ) Even your second post gives the “matter of fact tone” that curiosity into such a matter is foolish, as if the possibility itself was not, in the least bit, questionable. You stuck to ridicule, sarcasm, and the Delusional implications that “these things are irrational and impossible” is Fact. We actually didn’t find out your (now) “True Stance” until your fourth post...After I posted those first two links.

Now the board knows that you aren’t as closed-minded as you seemed in your first….what…3 posts? (or not Anymore?) But think of it this way, at least now our little rants have contributed a little more to the thread, in the way of expanded ideas, than blurting out the implication, as a matter of (incorrect) fact, that everything that has to do with this concept is coincidental!

As a man of science and exploration in the search for truth and "rationality," this is a better outcome, don't you think?

guys get a room you are interesting but way off topic reel it in now please more examples of simerlar stuff would be great thanks

Originally posted by earthtriber
guys get a room *you are interesting but way off topic reel it in now please *more examples of simerlar stuff would be great thanks

Reel it in? I thought I just did.

Unless you're implying that Estrada was correct when he said that you're just attributing Every One of these experiences to be a "precognitive dream," then I'd feel you'd be welcome to hearing thought-out ideas on the subject. If your aim is to hear nothing but similar experiences and not relevant perspectives on the subject of this thread, then perhaps Estrada was right, and I was unnecessarily trying to defend you by giving at least Some validity to your point of view.

...Oh well!

Hehe.

Originally posted by Oneironaut

If your aim is to hear nothing but similar experiences and not relevant perspectives on the subject of this thread, then perhaps Estrada was right, and I was unnecessarily trying to defend you by giving at least Some validity to your point of view.

The problem is these real vs. imagination loops create a lot of text but never resolve. For some of us there is no question that these things occur. A dream can have so much detail that when it "comes true" it's unmistakable what it was. I don't expect anyone that hasn't had the experience to believe it, I wouldn't have. So just assume we're deluded, and humor us.

It seems that awareness is not bound by the physical brain. It's also not locked to the present. Another interesting fact that I learned first hand is that awareness is not necessarily a personal thing. This last point might be the hardest to believe. It is possible to become aware of another persons actual experience through dreaming. Their private thoughts too. Past or future. Maybe some people can do this while awake, or at will, I don't know.

Originally posted by Been There+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Been There)</div>

The problem is these real vs. imagination loops create a lot of text but never resolve. So just assume we're deluded, and humor us. [/b]

Done. Forget I tried to help.


<!--QuoteBegin-Been There


It seems that awareness is not bound by the physical brain. *It's also not locked to the present. *Another interesting fact that I learned first hand is that awareness is not necessarily a personal thing. *This last point might be the hardest to believe. *It is possible to become aware of another persons actual experience through dreaming. *Their private thoughts too. *Past or future. *Maybe some people can do this while awake, or at will, I don't know. *

I've gotten interested in that theory as well. I call it singular consciousness. The theory that we are all compartmentalized sections (so to speak) of the same, shared, singular awareness. It is evident that our consciousnesses (word?) constantly intersect with one another, either through a 'psychic' link, or through coincedence, as discussed.

Originally posted by Oneironaut


I've gotten interested in that theory as well. I call it singular consciousness. The theory that we are all compartmentalized sections (so to speak) of the same, shared, singular awareness. It is evident that our consciousnesses (word?) constantly intersect with one another, either through a 'psychic' link, or through coincedence, as discussed.

There is definitely something like that happening. I was able to verify a lengthy dream with the person that had the actual experience. It was more than a minute long. In the dream it was as if I was that person, but I didn't realize it at the time. Some things the person only imagined or thought were included in the dream. There were many many points to verify so we were both able to know it was the same experience and that no one was fooling anybody. The other person was a little freaked by this realization, especially the private thoughts and imagination parts. That dream happened after the actual events but I could not have been aware of them by normal methods.

Another time a precognitive type dream included another person talking. When it played out in reality the person talking didn't speak the entire verbiage from the dream. Turns out the missing part was only thought and not spoken. In the dream I couldn't tell the difference, I thought it was all spoken. So it's also possible to know what another person will think in the future.

Well i read the first post nothign else, and id like to add, taht i have these kind of foreseeing dreams, sadly each time i do dream of something its something i hate, mostly small stuff like dreaming im going to bump into someone i hate in a few days, usely in my dream it doesnt 'happen' like in the dream but more as if, i see something or someone in my dream and a few days later i see that someone or im doing taht something. Its pretty amazing i havent had any recently but i dont mind, i dont really like to see the future but to enjoy the present.

one of the real confusing parts of this type of dreaming is when you dont dream of the future.......... but think or feel you may have that can be a unnessersary influence on the way you approch things....... its been great to chat about all these things really enjoying it happy new year to you all..........

I sometimes worry about my dreams. Because of the fact that I have had dreams that have come to fruition, I worry that maybe I am missing something or that the recalling of the dream is changing my life events. Mostly i worry that i am being given information that i am forgetting upon waking, and what good is that?
I don't lose sleep over it or anything, but it is a constant fear.

So all of you here that believe in precognitive dreams, also believe that time moves both forward and backwards?