Theory of Precognitive Dreams

**CFTraveler** · 20th September 2013, 01:06 AM

A pdf by Ian Wilson- Very good.
http://www.youaredreaming.org/assets...ive_Dreams.pdf

**ButterflyWoman** · 20th September 2013, 01:43 AM

This reads exactly like an undergraduate essay for a psychology class.

(This is not a complaint, merely an observation.)

I am thrilled to learn this term: DÃ©jÃ♥ RÃªve. This happens to me All. The. Time. It has for years. I go somewhere, I'm doing something, and I suddenly realised, "Wow, I dreamed this..." (Mind you, it never amounts to anything at all, it just happens and is basically meaningless as far as needing to know it or anything else.)

Overall, that was a good read. I have some issues with certain things (such as the term "objective reality") but I'm a weird, pedantic person, so my complaints are pretty... well... pedantic. It's a good read, though, and it rings true, and that's speaking as someone who has had precog dreams for some forty years or so.

WARNING: Legal pedantry alert: I noted that the document says "Public Domain, Copyright Held by Author"? That's legally impossible. Public Domain specifically means that the author does NOT hold the copyright, though either an act of reliquishment or the copyright having expired. I know this is totally NOT the point, but I wanted to mention this for anyone who reads that or stumbles on this thread at some point, etc. Public Domain = Copyright Free. Don't be fooled (as this author apparently was).

**CFTraveler** · 20th September 2013, 01:30 PM

I know him from another forum, he's allowing people to use it as long as his name is cited as the author, is what I think he means.

**ButterflyWoman** · 20th September 2013, 02:27 PM

That's not Public Domain. He should be releasing it under a Creative Commons license if he wants that sort of distribution requirement (which is a reasonable requirement). There's a CC license specifically for exactly that stipulation, even.

But Public Domain = Copyright Free. That's an international legal fact.

BUT, as I noted, this is pedantic, and really nothing to do with the article, which is quite worth reading, no matter how incorrect his "legal notice" is.