Thread: Where is the Dream state?

Originally Posted by BlueBlue

I'm not even sure where I exist. But one thing's for sure: I think therefore I am! But that's the problem, so many people nowadays don't think at all, so is Descartes valid?

Hardly, Read just the beginning of his treatise. He took some of what Plato said, but discounted perception. i.e. without the material of thought, how can you even think? Hello? The part is not equal to the whole. To say that we learn by experience means, perception determines conception, conception determins will.

Take the first axiom of logic A = A. It comes from the fact that we can abstract only two elements, a things form (which is not a difference, thus A = A) and a things material difference. We get the two points that Aristotle made, we learn by induction or by demonstration. Transform the synonyms, by perception and the mental manipulation of what we have perceived.

In Scripture, we have rejected the cornerstone. Christ was a metaphor for perception. What he did, what you saw, is what was to be said. You learn the same way in Lucid Dreaming. To learn it as a language, you have to learn to say what you see. This is the foundation for all language. How could Descartes even write his treatise when he negated perception, thus language itself?

You cannot predicate of a first principle, life is a first principle, therefore it is not I think therefor I am, it is simply I am.

Now you have heard that before, but never understood it.

That is okay, what I am currently interested in, is the distinction between the perceptible and the intelligible, no one has understood how this fits in with language theory, the perceptible are nouns, the intelligible are verbs--they both name things. Thus the current division of Subject and Predicate is wrong. The division of subject and predicate is not made by things, but the convention by which the name is constructed. Subjects are the names of a thing as a whole, predicates are the names of things constructed by at least two names, the name of a things form and a name for the material difference in that form. This means, that of the three primitive unit sentences, 1 has no predicate, 1 has no subject, 1 has both subject and predicate. Neat.

Originally Posted by AustralianFire

A can dream exist in of one of there places (possibly)
a) totally in your mind- you have created the environment, characters, rules and everything else
b) in another persons mind - so somehow you and another person/multiple people have had your mind/s connect and now all of you are creating your dream, taking characteristics from all of you
c) on the dream plane - as referred to by wakingnomad, mosh, ravennight etc etc
I believe all of my dreams take place in my mind, i have never shared a dream, but I'm not ruling it out

I would hardly have any reason to believe that the brain processes information in more than one place. Just like the hands, legs, stomach, lungs. etc.

Philosopher8659

If it could be proved that shared dreaming was possible to you - where would you think that this happens and how?

Originally Posted by floatinghead

Philosopher8659

If it could be proved that shared dreaming was possible to you - where would you think that this happens and how?

Even telepathy happens in your own mind, just like hearing happens within your own mind. There is a difference between method and mode.

I am well aware of the fact of telepathy.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Even telepathy happens in your own mind, just like hearing happens within your own mind. There is a difference between method and mode.

I am well aware of the fact of telepathy.

Okay, well, taking the traditional scientific view on hearing, one object "creates" the sound, i.e. makes the vibrations in the form of sound waves, which then travel to and are perceived by the ears. The processing of hearing certainly happens within your own mind, but the source material for that originates outside yourself. Or at least, so says traditional science. I'm ignoring the new theories that everything originates inside the mind, for this argument.

So, if you equate hearing to telepathy in some way, then surely you'll agree the source thought must originate outside of yourself, if you are to "hear" it. This means the thought must be transmitted somehow. On Earth, sound is transmitted through a fluid, that is, through the air or through water. Sounds do not transmit through space because there is no medium for them to transmit through. Now, what sort of medium would thoughts trasmit through? This is an interesting subject, and part of why I'm interested in these alternative theories.

Personally, I haven't fully decided, but I'm prone to thinking the universe is immersed in a sort of field of consciousness, through which all conscious, aware beings communicate somehow. I don't see why this wouldn't include plants, and other animals as well. Since it envelops everything, there is reason to remain open-minded about some sort of dream plane, a part of consciousness that is influenced by us in some way, yet remains outside of it. There's no proof either way, but the idea is interesting and plausible enough to keep me open-minded.

Yes, the Pythagoreans said everything was created of numbers. The Religious of God, etc. etc., This wonderful lack of distinctions is beyond my simple mind.

Now you have people thinking all of creation is a video game. Just wonderful.

And as far as proof goes, you should think about that, proof is saying the same thing in each of the two elemental logic systems while complying with its principles of grammar--which by the way are abstracted from this very same reality which is independent of man.

However, the pairing language does not dictate the validity of the other. You may of heard of the misnomer, metalanguage before. In such a pairing, who decides which takes first place since both are required?

And, if space is not a medium, how do we get light through space?

According to the two element metaphysics, if it is a difference, it is a medium--of which all you can do is assert boundaries.

Now wasn't it silly to look for an aether in space? A medium of a medium? Hello? You cannot predicate a material difference of a material difference. If aether had been found, it would have contradicted the principles of all logic.

Until recently, science was conviced everything in the universe was composed of atoms. I assume you disagree with that, too? I know I do. I feel there is something beyond physical reality.

You are basically saying you cannot reduce everything to one common element, right? In that case, what do you think comprises the universe? I'm legitimately curious, here. I realize I probably misinterpret you a lot. I admit to not having taken a basic logic course lately, so your logical equations sometimes seem a bit lost on me, but I'd like to think I still get the general idea. If I do get something wrong, please try to correct me.

Two element metaphysics pioneered and forgotten by some early Greeks. Your body works with them, form and material difference. They are not things, thus everything is composed of these two nothings. Some of your systems abstract form, some material difference, none abstract the thing in itself. It is the foundation of all logic, and your best learning it by learning the exact sciences, those that teach you about names and language itself. Arithmetic, Geometry, etc.

I explain as best as I can in Language and Experience, I posted it, but the archive is still processing it.

In any logic, you have an element given and you must supply the other to construct something. It is a language of craft. It is how every acquisition system of your body works, and when you mind starts working, you will think as a creator thinks.

Right now you make the common mistake, looking for the smallest thing from which all things are created, never realizing that that is a self-referential fallacy. Things defined in terms of things. Nether form, nor material difference, on the other hand are things. All you can do is name them. You can predicate nothing of them, as all they have is a name. See Plato.

Hmm. I'm pretty busy these days with college, but perhaps when I find the time I will take a closer look at these. I think I may be starting to get what you mean though. Basically, in logic, you are given say, x. You supply m and b, and therefore you construct Y. That's the simple line equation, Y = mx+b. This is the sort of thing you mean when you call logic a language of craft, yes? So nothing exists in isolation, or if it did, it would have no real meaning. Not only that, x, m, b, and y, are not things, but concepts. Labels. They have no inherent value in and of themselves. Each line has different values for these.

...Okay, I think I've got it. You say things cannot be composed of other things, for then, what would those things be composed of, right? This is the same line of thinking as, what came before the big bang or god, or what is a quark composed of? So do you consider consciousness a form, then? Not a thing of its own accord, but a quality applied to other things? I feel like I'm starting to get myself turned around again... I truly am trying to understand, though.

Plato writes so that you have to abstract the idea. He does not teach by rote.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Don't worry, I know you could not get it. Other do, I trust. If A = A, then relation to self is inadmissible. Such thoughts as you posed, as complex they are, always rests on the most basic of mistakes in reasoning. You cannot create any complexity when the very simple has not been mastered. Like a child, facinated with very large numbers, while having no notion of what 1 is.

Soon I will post how to multiply and divide a line by a line--never been done before, this means that dispite all the talk in geometry itself has been from people, like Einstein, who could not even do the four basic moves in arithmetic with it. Now, I ask, how is it, that people sought the delian solution, or angle division, when they could not do the simple math?

Like you, they believed they knew what they did not.

Ok, first off, a tip on communication: it is supposed to be a bridge between 2 people. You post like you are talking to yourself. Not because you use "big words," but because you seem to make little effort to ground your ideas in a way that are relatable to other people. You honestly think people know what you mean when you say "universal mental masturbation" and don't explain yourself? And instead of explaining yourself when I reply to your comment you basically say that my own logic is too infantile for my own ideas? You come off as pretty pompous.

Secondly, I can see a little of where you are coming from as far as your mindset. Logic, reason, philosophical deduction. Which is all good and fine, however there are ways to attain knowledge that don't come purely through logic. I know reality is consciousness because I have seen it, as sure as you have seen your hands in front of you. It wasn't deduced, it was just shown to me. Which will cause you to dismiss the idea even more, which is fine that's a natural reaction; however my point is I didn't arrive at such an idea through some logical train of thought, as you imply in your post.

You seem like a smart guy, make an effort to adapt your communication style based on the person you are communicating with and I bet you could get into some really good discussions with people that wouldn't be so one sided.

BB - Like Dream Characters IRL!
TT - Mostly agree, good analogies! The radio analogy is often used but I like the way you presented it.
I usually resort to sub-atomic physics to demonstrate what an illusion our experience of the physical world is. Basically what we experience as a solid is really just mostly empty space at the atomic level. And looking finer at the sub-atomic partials, more space and packets of energy. And how a cat or an insect has a very different perception of what is around us.
Not sure if we are allowed to post YouTube links here but ReeseJones87 has a lot to say about Lucid Dreaming. A recent video he posted does a very neat job of comparing reality in dreams versus reality in "real" life. Well worth watching.

P.S. Sorry about the placement of this post, didn't see there was a second page to this thread! Kinda out of place in this philosophical discussion.

Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad

Ok, first off, a tip on communication: it is supposed to be a bridge between 2 people. You post like you are talking to yourself. Not because you use "big words," but because you seem to make little effort to ground your ideas in a way that are relatable to other people. You honestly think people know what you mean when you say "universal mental masturbation" and don't explain yourself? And instead of explaining yourself when I reply to your comment you basically say that my own logic is too infantile for my own ideas? You come off as pretty pompous.

Secondly, I can see a little of where you are coming from as far as your mindset. Logic, reason, philosophical deduction. Which is all good and fine, however there are ways to attain knowledge that don't come purely through logic. I know reality is consciousness because I have seen it, as sure as you have seen your hands in front of you. It wasn't deduced, it was just shown to me. Which will cause you to dismiss the idea even more, which is fine that's a natural reaction; however my point is I didn't arrive at such an idea through some logical train of thought, as you imply in your post.

You seem like a smart guy, make an effort to adapt your communication style based on the person you are communicating with and I bet you could get into some really good discussions with people that wouldn't be so one sided.

Well don't mind me, I just have never found it worth while to try and defend anything resembling logic to someone who makes cause and effect the saame one moment and different the next. As Aristotle pointed out, it just is not worth it. Which side of the revolving door am I on anyway?

It is clear you don't understand relation to self.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Well don't mind me, I just have never found it worth while to try and defend anything resembling logic to someone who makes cause and effect the saame one moment and different the next. As Aristotle pointed out, it just is not worth it. Which side of the revolving door am I on anyway?

It is clear you don't understand relation to self.

So you don't accept any form of knowledge beyond logic?

I accept that the viewpoint I have from this reality is very limited, and to use only logical thinking will limit me. To restrict one's thought to only logic is akin to trying to see the forest for the trees. Logical, mental thought is a product of this reality. Therefore, to bind yourself to it is to bind yourself to this reality only.

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it" - Einstein

It doesn't mean abandoning reason entirely, but there is all kinds of ideas and information that can come through if you only quiet your reasoning mind enough to let them in - if only for a little while. And I know that sounds like blasphemy, but growth only comes from trying radically new things.

@Skicanoe

What you said about a cat or an insect having very different perceptions of what is around us is along the lines of what I was saying originally. The brain is not a producer of consciousness, it is a receiver and projector. Again, the analogy of a computer hooked up to the web (I'm not saying we are in a computer or video game, key work analogy.) Consciousness is formless, it would be like the information out in the web. However, when it gets filtered through the brain, similar to information getting filtered through your P.C and onto your monitor, it gets projected with the 5 senses into a holographic medium that you see as your surroundings.

So, for instance, and cat and an insect look at each other. The consciousness of the cat gets filtered through the brain of the insect, which projects it in a format which is unique to its perception system, and the consciousness of the insect gets filtered through the brain of the cat and projected in a manner which is unique to the cat. Both realities that the cat and insect experience are inside of their mind.

There isn't any reality separate of perception. You only have different consciousnesses interacting with each other, and it is that interaction which produces experience. Nothing objective anywhere.

On one level all these interacting minds are actually the same mind, but that's another can of worms.

I actually watched a bunch of Reese's videos the other day. I like them, the guy is articulate in a down to earth type of way.

Logic is a term that covers all langauges. The symbolic manipulation of things.

I will bow out of this discourse, because you don't appear to even be able to understand the simple sentence or what is implied. .

And by the way, I demonstrate quite easily, in Language and Exp[erience, that Einstein was an idiot--just another normal clever human. The proof is actually very simple.

I understand what logic is, but there is logic that is beyond the mind of a human. Being able to glimpse such logic is a matter of receptivity, not sequential thought.

Even Rene Descartes had a dream of an angelic being which spurred him towards the scientific method.

I can see we have reached a communication barrier, however I would advise you not to dismiss others simply because they don't share your own way of thinking. In an infinite universe there are an infinite number of perspectives, truth being relative.

Like I said, your a mystic. Simple reasoning will always be your frontier.

You really think stating that the absolute is the relative keeps you from the condemnation of the real great minds in history. Not! It is the very problem they fought against.

Philosopher, you seem kinda... hostile. And I have to admit, as much as I'm a left-brained logical thinker, I can't see things from your perspective. I feel that there is more to life than pure logic, and the objective. Besides, Einstein certainly wasn't infallible, but I wouldn't be so quick to call him an idiot. In fact, I don't call any great minds idiots, even if their ideas are sometimes obsolete. I take what I find valuable from them, and accept that their thoughts and discoveries were profound -- and often controversial -- for their time. They did the best they could with what they had, just like anyone else. We too are simply doing the best we can in life, are we not? You and I will never be able to convince the other that our reasoning is superior, and it seems like a waste of time to try, anyways. Besides, I agree with Tranquil Toad here. Truth-seeking isn't some kind of contest, and there is no "best" way to look at things. I shall leave you to your logic, and you can leave me to my own conclusions.

I started this thread with the clear objective of asking what people's personal ideas were, it seemed philosopher just came on here with the sole intention of debunking and attacking other people's ideas. Why do you feel the need to do that?

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” Plato

Well may as well re-steer this back to the original topic.

If anyone else has opinions or ideas on where dreams take place, please post them.

I think the answer is both simple and complex. Simple because dreaming is simply a difference state of mind. But complex because when we are in that state we can experience things that aren't in line with what we perceive to be reality when we are in the waking state. So you could call dreaming a different state of reality. Real life as we know it is still just something we are experiencing in our brain. Its mind boggling!

Originally Posted by cece23

Real life as we know it is still just something we are experiencing in our brain.

This is something not many people think about. That their immediate perception is actually their own brain.

' I know reality is consciousness because I have seen it, as sure as you have seen your hands in front of you'

Tranquil toad - would you mind speaking some more of this?

Hostile? Me? Aristotle says a lot here, it may take some study. It has to do with basic psychology.
________________________________
For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms.
4
There are some who, as we said, both themselves assert that it is possible for the same thing to be and not to be, and say that people can judge this to be the case. And among others many writers about nature use this language. But we have now posited that it is impossible for anything at the same time to be and not to be, and by this means have shown that this is the most indisputable of all principles.—Some indeed demand that even this shall be demonstrated, but this they do through want of education, for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education. For it is impossible that there should be demonstration of absolutely everything (there would be an infinite regress, so that there would still be no demonstration); but if there are things of which one should not demand demonstration, these persons could not say what principle they maintain to be more self-evident than the present one.
We can, however, demonstrate negatively even that this view is impossible, if our opponent will only say something; and if he says nothing, it is absurd to seek to give an account of our views to one who cannot give an account of anything, in so far as he cannot do so. For such a man, as such, is from the start no better than a vegetable. Metaphysics by Aristotle.

____________________________

One can call this the law of identity, the law of the excluded middle, or that reasoning, from its foundation is binary. One can see in it the Two-Element Metaphysics, and even the biological division of one's own body, However, to both assert and deny at the same time, even a carrot can do that. However, one cannot get a carrot to think about the non-sense it spews out.

To say " I know reality is consciousness because I have seen it" is just a rewording of "Man is the measure of all things." It is the same as saying the perceiver is the perceived. To me, and anyone else with a mind, that is pure psychological dysfunction. ONe only humors a mad man when they have to, and I don't.

The dreamstate really is in the middle of the Mississippi, just ask Mark Twain.

A member of a set is not the set of which it is a member. Duh. .

And why take exception to me, when by the very statement, I am only a fragment of his deluded imagination? Hello? This means that no one believes that bull shit any way.

Huck, if they be men, whys don't they talk like men?