c4countdown

Does anyone here know anything about philosophy? This is a question which sort of extends from the Religion thread but that seems to be infested with a whole bunch of pictures of naked animals with one eye for some reason. So, philosophy. Who likes it and who's an expert?

One-eyed animals you say?



Just thank your lucky stars he's not naked.

I'm certainly no expert, but I've long been fascinated by questions about the nature of our existence and its purpose (if any).

I hold a number of beliefs which, until science catches up, are likely to be regarded as spiritual. While they include the concept of a collective intelligence (which some people have (mistakenly, in my view) anthropomorphised and given a label to, such as 'God'), I do not regard myself as religious; I do not believe in any god as described by the faiths I've heard of.

I'm intrigued by many of the thought experiments and philosophical hypotheses that I've read about over the years. The big questions like "What is reality?" and "How do you define 'evil'?" are always fun to get your teeth into.

I'll think about it later, that's my philosophy.

I am very interested in philosophy to the extent that I am moving to Cardiff to pursue my study at an academic level. I have studied various aspects such as: philosophy of science; epistemology; moral theory; utopianism; philology; and the philosophical thought of various thinkers focussing on French post-modernists (though I am certainly no expert!).

At the minute I am interested in the idea of how the reality of an event is subordinated to the language we use to describe it. This may seem esoteric but I am trying to relate this question to the Rwandan genocide where the international community's obligation to act was negated by the simple refusal (at the time) to use the word 'genocide.' Crucial to the background of this argument is the idea of language, as developed by Wittgenstein, as far from being a tool we use to convey social meaning is actually, at times at any rate, obfuscating the message (or becomes the message).

David O'Donnell wrote:... Rwandan genocide ... the international community's obligation to act was negated by the simple refusal (at the time) to use the word 'genocide.'

That's an interesting theory, although a cynic might suggest it was because Rwanda doesn't have oil or any other significant resource that we benefit from. All it exports is a small amount of tea and coffee.

I blame the salmon mousse.

Ian Volante wrote:I blame the salmon mousse.

Is that what happens when a fish & a rodent mate?

I blame the salmon moose.

I'm quite into various bits of philosophy.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm quite into various bits of philosophy.

Minimalism?

Matt Morrison wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:I'm quite into various bits of philosophy.

Minimalism?

Yeah.

I am quite into the philosophy of consciousness and have read stuff by people like Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers.

Alec Rivers wrote:

David O'Donnell wrote:... Rwandan genocide ... the international community's obligation to act was negated by the simple refusal (at the time) to use the word 'genocide.'

That's an interesting theory, although a cynic might suggest it was because Rwanda doesn't have oil or any other significant resource that we benefit from. All it exports is a small amount of tea and coffee.

I wouldn't disagree with you but I think you are making a political argument instead of a philosophical one. Rwanda would be a kind of simulacrum in my argument to help illuminate some current ideas in the philosophy of language. My goal isn't to discover some truth about the heinous events in Rwanda though I think that this is a laudable cause.

David O'Donnell wrote:I wouldn't disagree with you but I think you are making a political argument instead of a philosophical one.

Indeed I was. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

HOLY HIPPOS

Thats as philosophical as I get.

I'm working on a proof of the existence of God. David (or anyone else, I had a feeling Paul knew about this stuff?), if you're interested and have some spare time, you can see my starting point on the richarddawkins forum. My username is mikeylear and if you've got anything useful to contribute I'd appreciate it. On internet forums it's hard to know who's an idiot and who isn't, so I've been spending quite a long time trawling through some fairly idiotic posts to discover that the person writing it is an idiot. So naturally I turned to the Countdown forum, 99% idiot free.
I reckon with a little bit of help from you lot I'll have the Church of England back off its knees by 2011.

Mikey Lear wrote:I turned to the Countdown forum, 99% idiot free.

Mikey Lear wrote:I reckon with a little bit of help from you lot I'll have the Church of England back off its knees by 2011.

Is that good or bad?

Mikey Lear wrote:I'm working on a proof of the existence of God. David (or anyone else, I had a feeling Paul knew about this stuff?), if you're interested and have some spare time, you can see my starting point on the richard dawkins forum. My username is mikey lear and if you've got anything useful to contribute I'd appreciate it. On internet forums it's hard to know who's an idiot and who isn't, so I've been spending quite a long time trawling through some fairly idiotic posts to discover that the person writing it is an idiot. So naturally I turned to the Countdown forum, 99% idiot free.
I reckon with a little bit of help from you lot I'll have the Church of England back off its knees by 2011.

I'm worried. How can I find out if I'm in the 1% idiot class on this Forum. I assume that mikey has had special training to enable him to spot an idiot. However, If mikey fails to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, us idiots will be in good company.

George Jenkins wrote:I'm worried. How can I find out if I'm in the 1% idiot class on this Forum. I assume that mikey has had special training to enable him to spot an idiot. However, If mikey fails to prove the existence of something that doesn't exist, us idiots will be in good company.

I'm more worried that, if he fails (or should that be if he succeeds?), it will create an irreversible imbalance in the spacetime continuum causing all of us who are idiots to vanish into an existential black hole. Now it's just a case of working out who is in danger.

Look, if I can prove God exists then he's going to owe me, isn't he? So I'd start sucking up to me if I were you lot, just in case he makes me a Lieutenant or something. What? No, that's not what I meant. Where's the smiley which is just as mental but has angel wings instead of devil horns?

It never ceases to amaze me that there are still so many people who think that we, a swarm of insignificant creatures on this seemingly insignificant planet, are the centre of the universe. As though God, if he/she/it exists (let's say 'he' from now on), has been kicking himself for 5,000,000 years for creating a species that regularly fails to acknowledge him. How insecure would he need to be? And what a monumental cock-up it was to create such creatures in the first place, if reverence was so important to him. In any case, what possible difference can it make to an all-powerful entity if a bunch of people choose not to acknowledge him? Also, I haven't heard of too many of the other 2,000,000 known species he created attending church lately. Why should we be any different?

I believe that Christianity may be rooted in truths as yet undiscovered by science. Unfortunately, in order for the teachings to spread, these truths were presented in parable form to an illiterate and unenlightened public. Then, over the millennia, these stories were subjected to an unknowable number of alterations caused by word-of-mouth re-telling, translations between semantically and culturally incompatible languages, hand-written copying by error-prone monks and, certainly not least, by immoral and self-serving edits (and indeed wholesale changes) conducted by unscrupulous church leaders, sometimes at the behest of a dastardly figure like Henry VIII. To me, it is inconceivable that the Bible, as peddled by the Church of England today, is anything other than a feeble shadow of its original self.

Having said all that, I would like to point out that I'm not against anyone having faith in their religious icons. We all need to have faith in something if we are to meet some of life's more difficult challenges, and I acknowledge that religion can provide a focus for such faith, just as it can provide some useful moral guidance. I just question the logic of taking the writings too literally.

Back to my main point, however, which is that I believe there is still much more for humanity to discover. Some very plausible theories - plausible to someone who has spent 20 years studying such things - suggest that there are energies and dimensions beyond those that mainstream science has so far declared. I am convinced that this is what we should be concentrating on because scientific confirmation of these theories, if it comes, would remove the huge element of doubt associated with religion and finally allow us to have the meaningful and unequivocal understanding of our existence that we have sought for so long. Religious people need not worry, though, because it could well provide proof of their concepts, although not in a way they might expect. Quantum physics and spirituality appear to be converging, and I'm excited by that.

One such energy system, incidentally, (and possibly a dimension to accommodate it) is said to connect us spiritually, leading to the possibility of there being a collective subconscience (god?), a place for our spirits to reside between incarnations (heaven?), and an explanation for confirmed psychic events (incl. healing and prayer).

The idea of a collective subconscience is not new, but if sufficient attributes and characteristics of the recently-discovered 'zero point field' are found to support the theory (as it is suggested they do), it could mark the beginning of an astonishing paradigm shift in our understanding of human existence. I concede it would be foolish of me to expect everyone to suspend disbelief for this one, but let me assure you I don't make such statements lightly and there is already ample anecdotal evidence in its favour.

One of the biggest problems facing the investigation of psychic phenomena is the presence of so many crackpots and charlatans muddying the waters. If they're not insane, then they're frauds extorting money from vulnerable people or popular entertainers doing pretty much the same thing by slightly less immoral means. I feel they are doing humanity a gross disservice by creating a culture of distrust of all things psychic, when there may well turn out to be something very useful in it that benefits us all. I have had a few interesting psychic experiences myself. All but one could, at a stretch, be considered coincidence but there is one that stands out and seems impossible to explain away 'logically'. If anyone asks to hear about it, I'll gladly post it.

For anyone who's interested (and still awake), some of the authors whose works I have read over the years are: Dr Brian Weiss M.D., Bruce Lipton Ph.D., Candace B. Pert, Ph.D., and Lynne McTaggart. One of the other authors I would mention is James Redfield for his Celestine Prophecy series although his ideas, interesting though they are, I hold more loosely than others.

Fine post, Alec.

Sue Sanders wrote:Fine post, Alec.

Really? It reeked heavily of BS to me.

I'd still like to hear about Alec's psychic experiences though.

Sue Sanders wrote:Fine post, Alec.

Thanks, Sue.

Jon Corby wrote:I'd still like to hear about Alec's psychic experiences though.

It was late 1997. I was working nights so I was asleep when, at 6pm, the phone rang. On waking, and before answering the phone, I became aware of three things: I had a stomach ache, I could hardly move my legs, and I still had vivid images in my mind of the dream I'd just had. I answered the phone. It was the police advising me that my mother had been taken ill and was at Redhill hospital having blood tests. I said my brother and I would make our way there immediately. We were living in Canterbury at the time.

On the way to Redhill I mentioned my dream to my brother because it had left such a strong impression: The scene was a wide urban road with buildings of three or four storeys on either side. The most striking feature was a thick black line across the top of the 'image' which, in the dream, I could not identify. I was at the side of this road, feeling as though I was trapped inside a confined space which, a few moments later, turned out to be a small car. It was very claustrophobic, and I felt ill and weak. I wanted to get out but couldn't. I then had people on either side making a fuss of me. That's when the phone woke me up.

When we arrived at the hospital we were relieved to find mum sitting up in bed, talking to a nurse. Her collapse appeared to have been caused by a not-too-serious case of food poisoning. She told us what happened: She had been on her way home from work in Croydon when, while driving in the Coulsdon area, she felt very ill and stopped at the side of the road. She had stomach cramps and could hardly move her limbs. Soon a local restaurateur and a passing traffic warden came to her aid. She mentioned that one got in the car and the other was at the driver's door.

I asked for her keys and said I would go to make sure her car was safely parked up and locked. I had never been to Coulsdon before but it was not very far and not difficult to find. When I got there, I saw mum's car on the opposite side of the road. I made a U-turn and, on pulling up by her car, was struck dumb by the scene before me. Not only was it a wide urban road, but the buildings were as I had seen in my dream and the 'thick black line' turned out to be a metal railway bridge over the road. It was dark, and the street lighting had made it appear almost black - the same as it would have been at about 5:30 when mum fell ill.

It is clear to me that, in her distress, mum's experience was reaching me while I slept. So intense was it that I not only saw what was happening, but also experienced physical discomfort that mimicked hers. I'm glad I recalled the dream to my brother before we spoke with mum, as it eliminates the possibility of false memories and suggestion. I am now convinced that we form bonds with each other that extend beyond currently known boundaries.

How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?

Charlie Reams wrote:How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?

It wasn't a premonition. It had nothing to do with seeing the future. Our experiences were concurrent.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?

It wasn't a premonition. It had nothing to do with seeing the future. Our experiences were concurrent.

Have you ever dreamt you were getting pounded by a few big black men?

Jon Corby wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?

It wasn't a premonition. It had nothing to do with seeing the future. Our experiences were concurrent.

Have you ever dreamt you were getting pounded by a few big black men?

Utter A-lol. Almost tears. Made all the more brilliant for reading the whole account and then scrolling down to see the Corby Appraisal.

Fuck the lot of you.

Alec Rivers wrote:Fuck the lot of you.

I'll take that as a "yes" I think.

Alec Rivers wrote:It never ceases to amaze me that there are still so many people who think that we, a swarm of insignificant creatures

Bad start, Alec. I don't know you, but you're on my smiting list.

Alec Rivers wrote:I believe that Christianity may be rooted in truths as yet undiscovered by science.

Too little too late. I'm going to totally smite you.

Sue Sanders wrote:Fine post, Alec.

On my list.

Jon Corby wrote:

That picture of you smiling so pleasantly always tricks me. But I know the truth - you're lounging around in your room wearing yellow y-fronts and your eyes are gummed together with eye snot and there's a used saucepan under your bed because last night you were hungry and boiled yourself some potatoes and ate them in bed and just left the saucepan there. And furthermore, you're probably thinking blasphemous thoughts. You're on my list.

Charlie Reams wrote:

That look is supposed to be saying "Oh really?" isn't it? Well it doesn't fool me. You're clearly thinking "I hate God" or "I hate Mikey" or "I think someone's going to penny my drink while this guy pretends he's taking a photo of me". Either way, you're on my list.

Matt Morrison wrote:Utter A-lol.

You're A-on my list.

Alec Rivers wrote:Fuck the lot of you.

You're on twice.

I can't wait till I get to smite people. It's going to be so awesome.

Mikey Lear wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

That picture of you smiling so pleasantly always tricks me. But I know the truth - you're lounging around in your room wearing yellow y-fronts and your eyes are gummed together with eye snot and there's a used saucepan under your bed because last night you were hungry and boiled yourself some potatoes and ate them in bed and just left the saucepan there. And furthermore, you're probably thinking blasphemous thoughts. You're on my list.

That's uncanny! It's almost like my experience was reaching you while you slept

Mikey's ways are just and he followeth after the path of righteousness. Hearken to him.

Richard Brittain wrote:Mikey's ways are just and he followeth after the path of righteousness. Hearken to him.

Good point Richard. You were on my list for that time when you lost my stick, but I'll put you onto the maybes for that one. If you keep up the awesome prophetic style proclamations you might get a new name, like Abraham and Paul did. I think I'd go for Aloysius. Any other suggestions?

Mikey Lear wrote:Any other suggestions?

Ecclesiastes Myanmar.

Mikey Lear wrote:

Richard Brittain wrote:Mikey's ways are just and he followeth after the path of righteousness. Hearken to him.

Good point Richard. You were on my list for that time when you lost my stick, but I'll put you onto the maybes for that one. If you keep up the awesome prophetic style proclamations you might get a new name, like Abraham and Paul did. I think I'd go for Aloysius. Any other suggestions?

Oi Mikey, How come I'm not going to be smitten. I demand my politically correct rights to be treated the same as everybody else. As my last request, I would prefer to be whipped by one of your female converts wearing black stockings, suspenders and frilly knickers. P.S. I'll supply the whip.

Mikey Lear wrote:Does anyone here know anything about philosophy? This is a question which sort of extends from the Religion thread but that seems to be infested with a whole bunch of pictures of naked animals with one eye for some reason. So, philosophy. Who likes it and who's an expert?

Great thread, Mikey. The only person who offered anything of a thought provoking nature has been ridiculed by the oh so self-assured triumvirate of the Reamian Empire, and you've established your 'Smiting' list. Very philosophical.

Sue Sanders wrote: Great thread, Mikey. The only person who offered anything of a thought provoking nature has been ridiculed by the oh so self-assured triumvirate of the Reamian Empire, and you've established your 'Smiting' list. Very philosophical.

I asked a perfectly sensible question which actually unravels the whole "psychic" mystery, and in response received only a pedantic deflection of the issue. Obviously this doesn't fit with your pre-determined opinion of who's Right and who's Not. If only there was some kind of word for people like that.

Also if you care to read the thread you'd notice that David O'Donnell (another member of the axis of evil, no doubt) posted something interesting which received several cogent responses. On the other hand someone who claimed to have psychic powers was roundly mocked. How very unreasonable!

Charlie Reams wrote:On the other hand someone who claimed to have psychic powers was roundly mocked. How very unreasonable!

There are plenty of

Alec Rivers wrote:confirmed psychic events (incl. healing and prayer).

so I'm not sure what your particular issue is with this one.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Mikey Lear wrote:Does anyone here know anything about philosophy? This is a question which sort of extends from the Religion thread but that seems to be infested with a whole bunch of pictures of naked animals with one eye for some reason. So, philosophy. Who likes it and who's an expert?

Great thread, Mikey. The only person who offered anything of a thought provoking nature has been ridiculed by the oh so self-assured triumvirate of the Reamian Empire, and you've established your 'Smiting' list. Very philosophical.

I thought that Mikey's post about religion was a humorous wind up, which we reacted to in a similar vein. the question about psychic experiences is bound to cause controversy, and authors of these experiences must be prepared for argument etc. It is what brings this Forum to life, and is no big deal anyway. I could say that I am psychic. My Wife often starts talking about the very subject that I am thinking of. So much so, that only this week, I joked that I must be careful of what I am thinking about. We had a good laugh about it.

I have just had a premonition that Sue Sanders will have an overwhelming urge to hit the mute button on her remote control around about 3.40 today

Charlie Reams wrote:I asked a perfectly sensible question ... and ... received only a pedantic deflection of the issue.

With respect, there was a crucial difference in meaning: 'A dream coming true' refers to a prior vision of a future event, something I have never claimed to have had. What I experienced was concurrent with the event. Sorry if I was unclear.

Alec Rivers wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I asked a perfectly sensible question ... and ... received only a pedantic deflection of the issue.

With respect, there was a crucial difference in meaning: 'A dream coming true' refers to a prior vision of a future event, something I have never claimed to have had. What I experienced was concurrent with the event. Sorry if I was unclear.

That distinction is kinda irrelevant to the discussion though. "Dream come true" is just a snappier way of saying "dream that actually portrayed real events occurring either in the future or concurrently about which you should have had no knowledge".

Charlie Reams wrote:I asked a perfectly sensible question which actually unravels the whole "psychic" mystery, and in response received only a pedantic deflection of the issue. Obviously this doesn't fit with your pre-determined opinion of who's Right and who's Not. If only there was some kind of word for people like that.

... 'How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?'!!! That's the perfectly sensible question that 'unravels' the whole psychic mystery???? Good grief.

I expect 99.9 percent of dreams don't come true -which is why Alec's experience falls into a different category.


I don't have a strong opinion about psychic experiences - I'd say I'm sceptical, but I certainly don't have a 'pre-determined opinion'. But in terms of who's Right and who's Not -well there are certain civilities it's pleasant to extend to your fellow man and I can spot when they're lacking.

Sue Sanders wrote:I expect 99.9 percent of dreams don't come true -which is why Alec's experience falls into a different category.

99.9% is probably understating a bit, but let's go with that figure. If something very unlikely happens 0.1% of the time, is that

a) exactly what you'd expect by chance
b) evidence of psychic powers

?

I'm beaming the answer to you as you read this.

George Jenkins wrote:... the question about psychic experiences is bound to cause controversy, and authors of these experiences must be prepared for argument etc.

Yeah, I agree, George. I expect Alec was prepared for argument. I decided that rather than copping out with a PM to Alec, I'd go with my conscience and give him a bit of moral support publicly. Not for his belief.... but cos the bloke had just been ridiculed.

Jon Corby wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:I expect 99.9 percent of dreams don't come true -which is why Alec's experience falls into a different category.

99.9% is probably understating a bit, but let's go with that figure. If something very unlikely happens 0.1% of the time, is that

a) exactly what you'd expect by chance
b) evidence of psychic powers

?

I'm beaming the answer to you as you read this.

Wasting your time then because as a sceptic - I'm not gonna suddenly develop psychic powers. You do seem to be failing to pick up on the point that I'm supporting Alec on grounds of you not being a cunt rather than his psychic experience

Sue Sanders wrote:

Jon Corby wrote:

Sue Sanders wrote:I expect 99.9 percent of dreams don't come true -which is why Alec's experience falls into a different category.

99.9% is probably understating a bit, but let's go with that figure. If something very unlikely happens 0.1% of the time, is that

a) exactly what you'd expect by chance
b) evidence of psychic powers

?

I'm beaming the answer to you as you read this.

Wasting your time then because as a sceptic - I'm not gonna suddenly develop psychic powers. You do seem to be failing to pick up on the point that I'm supporting Alec on grounds of you not being a cunt rather than his psychic experience

That last sentence confused me slightly, but I think you're calling me a cunt. Why? Because I called his original long post BS? Or because I made a joke implying his mum may have got done by a few blokes?

Jon Corby wrote:
99.9% is probably understating a bit, but let's go with that figure.

So, you never dream about going to work, being on holiday, swimming, driving, being punched in the face...all of which arguably can be said to come true fairly regularly....

I came across this topic and noted there was some philosophy and some religion, both of which I find interesting. I thought I'd throw a few of my ideas out there to add to the discussion. I also included some opinions on psychic phenomena because I think there is an overlap with religion and with 'action at a distance' in quantum physics.

I very much expected others to have opinions that differ from mine and was keen to hear them. This being a forum whose members largely appear to be well-educated, I was hoping for healthy debate and the exchange of some interesting ideas and knowledge. The hard work I put into my post and the honest expression of my beliefs, however, went completely unacknowledged (except by Sue) and I was instead subjected to infantile ridicule. Not once has anyone had the courage to explain what their beliefs are, and how and why they differ. That, I think, is the point Sue was trying to make (if I may be so bold as to make that assumption) and it is also why I was so offended and disappointed by the response.

Okay, to summarise:

I think it's very dishonest to claim that science is moving towards saying "all this religious/spiritual/psionics stuff - it's real!", which is why I called that BS.

I then made a joke implying, well, something about your mum's sex life. It wasn't ridiculing your beliefs or anything, it was just an opportunity to make a "your mum" joke.

FTR, my beliefs are all evidence-based, hence nobody is psychic, weird occurrences are explainable (you just don't have all the information), there is no God, etc etc. I'm sure you can work them out.

Sue Sanders wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:I asked a perfectly sensible question which actually unravels the whole "psychic" mystery, and in response received only a pedantic deflection of the issue. Obviously this doesn't fit with your pre-determined opinion of who's Right and who's Not. If only there was some kind of word for people like that.

... 'How many dreams have you had that didn't come true?'!!! That's the perfectly sensible question that 'unravels' the whole psychic mystery???? Good grief.

Sue Sanders and Charlie are reminiscent of Clare Sudbery and Corby - complete personality clashes spiced with acerbic ripostes, but tempered by occasional shared amusement.

Where would we be without the input of some female spice though?

Derek Hazell wrote:Sue Sanders and Charlie are reminiscent of Clare Sudbery and Corby

You should take that as a very severe insult Sue.

Alec Rivers wrote:The hard work I put into my post and the honest expression of my beliefs, however, went completely unacknowledged (except by Sue) and I was instead subjected to infantile ridicule. Not once has anyone had the courage to explain what their beliefs are, and how and why they differ.

Charlie asked a perfectly polite and pertinent question - albeit somewhat succinctly expressed, which may have rendered the point he was making opaque (judging by your irrelevant quibbling about the semantics of "dreams coming true"). Charlie's point was that one bizarre coincidence is not a rigorous proof of psychic communication; saying so hardly constitutes "infantile ridicule", and I think probably also tells you all you need to know about what his beliefs are and how they differ from yours.

Phil Reynolds wrote:irrelevant quibbling

Personally, I cannot think of a more relevant distinction than one that separates concurrent and future visions. Surely there is a world of difference between knowing something that is happening and something that is yet to happen. I don't believe the future can be foretold any more than you do. But I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that there are connections between physical entities that are yet to be fully understood.

Jon Corby wrote:

Derek Hazell wrote:Sue Sanders and Charlie are reminiscent of Clare Sudbery and Corby

You should take that as a very severe insult Sue.

I can ride above it cos I know I'm lovely...or have I just walked.......????

Alec Rivers wrote:Personally, I cannot think of a more relevant distinction than one that separates concurrent and future visions.

You still don't get it, do you? It was irrelevant because Charlie wasn't suggesting that your dream was apparently predicting future events. It was just slightly careless use of language on his behalf. Yet you chose to ignore his real point, and focus instead on misinterpreting his meaning and then picking holes in what he didn't say.

Phil Reynolds wrote:

Alec Rivers wrote:The hard work I put into my post and the honest expression of my beliefs, however, went completely unacknowledged (except by Sue) and I was instead subjected to infantile ridicule. Not once has anyone had the courage to explain what their beliefs are, and how and why they differ.

Charlie asked a perfectly polite and pertinent question - albeit somewhat succinctly expressed, which may have rendered the point he was making opaque (judging by your irrelevant quibbling about the semantics of "dreams coming true"). Charlie's point was that one bizarre coincidence is not a rigorous proof of psychic communication; saying so hardly constitutes "infantile ridicule", and I think probably also tells you all you need to know about what his beliefs are and how they differ from yours.

Give Alec a break. Charlie's comment in isolation isn't the 'infantile ridicule' - it's the combination of that, Jon deciding to make a 'your mum' joke and Matt choosing to reveal he was in tears of laughter. And then there was Mike Lear. An acquired taste, I guess.

Alec Rivers wrote:But I am open-minded enough to accept the possibility that there are connections between physical entities that are yet to be fully understood.

Great, it's good to be open-minded. However, by far the most parsimonious explanation is that there is no such link, and that any connection between something you once dreamt and something that happened is a coincidence. If you can design a reliable experiment to show otherwise then I'd be happy to participate in it. You'd certainly be in line for a Nobel if it worked.

Alec Rivers wrote: I think there is an overlap with religion and with 'action at a distance' in quantum physics.

Dude, you should really know something about quantum physics before making pseudoscientific claims like that.