Thread: Why this might refute Evolution

Yeah but you may as well just go ahead and assume it is either real or not real. Coz ya never gonna find out either way.

Originally Posted by elucid

The things you mentioned are not enough to prove that dreams do take place in our heads or that they are not real, because all we study according to you is outside stimuli handed to us thus doubting what is real and what is not.

What would you accept as proof?

Originally Posted by elucid

Basically the main point of the thread was that "knowing" that there exists a "situation" that shows "history" in a "fossil" but is not "real" history, then by studying a fossil and seeing history in it, do you say that it is "real"?

...Except that the "situation" you note is a dream, which by every definition we can humanly muster is not real. So, that fossil's history is utterly irrelevant, if it is viewed in a dream. And yes, its history is equally unreal, even if my memory-challenged mind thinks it's real during a dream. History in a fossil, or history in a banana, or history in an orangutan, or history in the distant mountains, or history in anything at all has zero physical historic value in a dream. Why? Because the world your dreaming mind creates is not real.

Your statement can only follow, elucid, if you assume that the physical world is also someone's dream, and no more. So, for this to make sense, we're all just a bunch of dream sprites or the physical universe is the dream of a slumbering God. Both of these things could be true, sure, but they also both require a leap of faith rather than science, logic, or what have you. Why are you so insistent in uniting rational thought with faith? Both are fine in their substance separately, but together it can be a real mess.

Originally Posted by elucid

The things you mentioned are not enough to prove that dreams do take place in our heads or that they are not real

Of course it doesn't 'prove' it (which is a very dangerous word to throw around, when you, yourself, are arguing in favor of a belief), so you have to move on to the next, logical question, which is "which idea has the most evidence?" To anyone whom is being honest with his/herself, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that dreams are a product of the mind. Of course, there are a few unanswered questions, which leaves slivers of room for the "well, we don't have proof" argument, which some people tend to run with, and say that that tiny margin of error means it's logical to staunchly believe that the 'mind-based' theory is wrong. This is not a logical progression, though, and I believe it's based chiefly on the unattractiveness of the idea that there is no "dream/astral realm" out there in the cosmos, as opposed to any actual fallibility of the 'mind-based' theory.

Even though the odds (and evidence) are highly suggestive that dreams are simply products of the mind, the hopeful tend to ignore the evidence, and hold onto any smallest piece of ambiguity as a reason to believe the scientific conclusion is as much of an 'assumption' as the faith-based conclusion, which is simply incorrect.

What would you accept as proof?

Well considering that the situation at hand is that the stimuli we seem to be getting does not seem to be what it is, then it seems hard to accept anything as proof. Again, even that is a theory that could be debated.

Except that the "situation" you note is a dream, which by every definition we can humanly muster is not real. So, that fossil's history is utterly irrelevant, if it is viewed in a dream. And yes, its history is equally unreal, even if my memory-challenged mind thinks it's real during a dream.

It is very irrelevant that the fossil does not have history even though it shows to have, even if it is in a dream or real, the point was that situation with a fossil that had history but was not real does exist, doubts that we can attribute history to any fossil that shows it.

Why are you so insistent in uniting rational thought with faith?

Rational reasoning is not yet complete, which follows why this reasoning seems to be new as I am seeing people have trouble with it. I see no faith in it, basically I am saying that finding a fossil that had history does not indicate real history as there exists a situation where it was the exact same thing but the history was known to not be real and all this is "assuming" that dreams are not real and take place in our minds created a new every time.

At the end, if you want to beat the debate, simply tell me, can we if assumed that dreams take place a new every time in our heads thus finding a fossil with history shows that it is not a sign of true history attribute history to a fossil that does show it?

logical question, which is "which idea has the most evidence?" To anyone whom is being honest with his/herself, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that dreams are a product of the mind.

I see that it is not logical at all to use a weigh type of thing to go in favor of something that has more evidence, but what is the evidence is the important part, I dont believe it has to do anything with the quantity. Some might even say that it is actually instinctive to say that dreams are a product of the mind as a first glance theory would say.

say that that tiny margin of error

I believe that it is the actual definition of "truth" to not have even the tiny margin of error. And I believe that is the main idea behind Science is studying the truth, or what exists.

and hold onto any smallest piece of ambiguity as a reason to believe the scientific conclusion is as much of an 'assumption' as the faith-based conclusion, which is simply incorrect.

I believe that there some people who have personal-desires when it comes to Science thus perhaps making it so that they are doing it for the money and ignore the quality, but then again we have peer-reviews which act as filter. Also I believe that there are some logic in our heads that we seem to ignore or accept and skip over those parts when studying such things which could result in a faulty Science.

Now to be fair, even I will take a crack at solving the issue. Suppose that dreams are not real, are created a new every time, thus proving that fossils with history in a dream do not have real history. Then I proceed to go to a fossil with history in this life, I cant say it is real or not, but can I say that it has real history? Even I am stumped, gotta be honest.

Of course from this then we can go on to say that basically since a situation exists which disprove our idea, our idea has been disproved. Suppose then that we "did not know" that a such situation exists, then can we say our situation that we are in is really true?

Originally Posted by elucid

I see that it is not logical at all to use a weigh type of thing to go in favor of something that has more evidence, but what is the evidence is the important part, I dont believe it has to do anything with the quantity. Some might even say that it is actually instinctive to say that dreams are a product of the mind as a first glance theory would say.

When I said 'most evidence', I was talking about both most quantitative and most substantial.

Originally Posted by elucid

I believe that it is the actual definition of "truth" to not have even the tiny margin of error. And I believe that is the main idea behind Science is studying the truth, or what exists.

And yet you lean toward the ideology that has the higher margin of error? Being competently closer to the truth - in respect to pursuits of knowledge and understanding - is better than holding onto an idea, and seeing how long you can ignore the evidence to the contrary. As long as there is the tiniest margin of error of any conclusion (however rigorous and otherwise overwhelming the empirical evidence) faith will always win, because it is inconsequential. As someone asked before, what would you accept as proof that dreams were centralized in the brain, exactly?

Originally Posted by elucid

I believe that there some people who have personal-desires when it comes to Science thus perhaps making it so that they are doing it for the money and ignore the quality, but then again we have peer-reviews which act as filter. Also I believe that there are some logic in our heads that we seem to ignore or accept and skip over those parts when studying such things which could result in a faulty Science.

I agree with that, but it works both ways. There are many scientific circles that are tainted by personal interests or biases. And yes, being human, there are some times were things can elude us - whether through bias or just methodological error - but when you have a system that is built upon looking at things critically, and advocating the rigorous testing of ideas to see if they hold up (as opposed to just forming a belief over vague experiences and a taste for the mystical), then you don't just discard the system, simply because it has the potential for error. Even with a few cases of error, the system is still going to be more effective in the pursuit of truth, than simply hanging on to your beliefs, and ignoring all evidence that says those beliefs are even less substantial.

Originally Posted by elucid

Now to be fair, even I will take a crack at solving the issue. Suppose that dreams are not real, are created a new every time, thus proving that fossils with history in a dream do not have real history. Then I proceed to go to a fossil with history in this life, I cant say it is real or not, but can I say that it has real history? Even I am stumped, gotta be honest.

The reason you're stumped may be because you are using the word 'real' in two completely different contexts, but without any established definition. When you say "Suppose that dreams are not 'real'", what do you mean by real? When you say "then I proceed to go to a fossil with history in this life, I can't say it is 'real' or not..." what do you mean by that? What is your standard of something being 'real'?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut Zero

The reason you're stumped may be because you are using the word 'real' in two completely different contexts, but without any established definition. When you say "Suppose that dreams are not 'real'", what do you mean by real? When you say "then I proceed to go to a fossil with history in this life, I can't say it is 'real' or not..." what do you mean by that? What is your standard of something being 'real'?

Those are the exact words I was looking for, thank you! I hope, elucid, that you are able to answer this!

Now:

Originally Posted by elucid:
At the end, if you want to beat the debate, simply tell me, can we if assumed that dreams take place a new every time in our heads thus finding a fossil with history shows that it is not a sign of true history attribute history to a fossil that does show it?

I'd hate to beat this debate, because then it would end, but here's my simple try: dreams that take place "anew every time in our heads" are a construct of our dreaming mind, our unconscious, and nothing in them is real, not even fossils. Period. You can believe what you want about the nature of dreams, cosmic consciousness, dream-sharing, aware dream-guides, visits from God, other planes of existence, etc etc etc, but in the end the engine that creates the foundation/backdrop to all that stuff is your own mind, no matter how real you think the "stuff" seems during the dream. In a dream that fossil is a prop; a symbol. It is not a fossil! By itself that prop has no meaning, no history, no substance at all, aside from what you attach to it. In truth, it has no existence on its own; it is not real.

In stark, obvious contrast, the waking life fossil that your dreaming mind used to model its presentation of "fossil" has meaning, history, and substance, without your needing to attach anything to it at all. It has existence, it is real, and it, unlike the dream fossil, will still be there if you drop it in the dirt and walk away.

I imagine that a thinking person would spend about two seconds on this problem, because he will look at the real fossil, drop it back in the dirt, and say, "Oh." And, as he walks away, knowing that the fossil is still there, history and meaning intact, he will wonder why he spent even those two seconds trying to attach dream-based "reality" to a rock.

The only way I can see a thinking person finding this problem interesting, or a problem at all, is if he is attaching certain parameters to his view of waking life reality that might need real faith to accept; i.e., that this universe is being dreamed by someone else. And that would be just fine, and well worth discussion. Except that you have no interest in admitting that need for a leap of faith to see your point as valid...

Originally Posted by Sageous

Those are the exact words I was looking for, thank you!

Haha. Welcome.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I'd hate to beat this debate, because then it would end, but here's my simple try: dreams that take place "anew every time in our heads" are a construct of our dreaming mind, our unconscious, and nothing in them is real, not even fossils. Period. You can believe what you want about the nature of dreams, cosmic consciousness, dream-sharing, aware dream-guides, visits from God, other planes of existence, etc etc etc, but in the end the engine that creates the foundation/backdrop to all that stuff is your own mind, no matter how real you think the "stuff" seems during the dream. In a dream that fossil is a prop; a symbol. It is not a fossil! By itself that prop has no meaning, no history, no substance at all, aside from what you attach to it. In truth, it has no existence on its own; it is not real.

I'd like to take this even one step further. Elucid - assuming we all have the capability of imagination/visualization, here - take a moment and imagine a fossil. Picture one in your head. Just like a regular old femur or something. Now, just because you're able to picture what that fossil looks like, does not give that fossil a physical 'history' (in the sense that it once belonged to some animal that died, and has degraded over time into this fossilized bone). It is just a mental image of the thing that we know as 'a fossil'.

To the best of our human knowledge, this is exactly how dream content works, but in dreams, we are actually able to 'see' the object, instead of just conceptualize it, as we do when we are using our imaginations.

My two cents:

In the waking life experience of picking up a fossil, the experience is internal and imagined, notwithstanding that it has a fairly close connection to an objective external activity. The dream experience is also imagined, though the connection with an external, objective reality may be much looser.

There is a lot about the 'waking' experience which is significantly subjective and internal, for example the mapping of light spectra to 'color'. There is also a fair amount of objective reality behind a dream experience, but with a lot more flexibility and room for confusion about how the experience is connected to that reality.

It appears to me that a lot of confusion results from people not recognizing the degree to which they're dreaming even while they're awake. Many people recognize that the waking and dreaming experiences are fundamentally the 'same', and try to interpret their dreams as being objectively real. A few people conclude that both experiences are sweepingly subjective. Other people recognize the much larger interpretive element in dreaming, and try to make a clean, absolute distinction between that and the 'waking' sensory interpretation, such as by assuming that 100% of the information in the dream is connected to the objective, external reality only through memory of prior sensate experience. There is quite a bit of variation between different people's imaginative characteristics though, and an assumption that seems to work well for one set of dream experiences may not work as well for every other set.

The reason you're stumped may be because you are using the word 'real' in two completely different contexts, but without any established definition. When you say "Suppose that dreams are not 'real'", what do you mean by real?

Another thing to add as to the debate, see how before we would not even ponder the idea of what is real? Such things would go unnoticed and may have resulted in tainted Science. It is hard to define real that goes with everyone, one would say that just its existence would mean it is real. Then people can say that dreams do exist and thus are real. Some say that physical existence means real, but a good thing about immaterial existence is that it has a color and that is no color at all, thus how can it be seen. So the idea of existence could be a case of "realness".

Now, just because you're able to picture what that fossil looks like, does not give that fossil a physical 'history' (in the sense that it once belonged to some animal that died, and has degraded over time into this fossilized bone). It is just a mental image of the thing that we know as 'a fossil'.

So you are basically doubting that history shows true history which is my point and saying that it is because we had a mental image that we should not doubt it. I understand that we should not doubt it because of that, but now that we understand that such a thing can be doubted, leaving room for it in the scientific sense, then not doubting it is simply faith. Suppose now that we throw away the reason for doubting, the doubting still exists. Which cripples Darwinian evolution.

In the waking life experience of picking up a fossil, the experience is internal and imagined, notwithstanding that it has a fairly close connection to an objective external activity.

Thus another reason to doubt that we see as a fossil is even a fossil that we see or a patterned light stimuli. So if we can even doubt the existence of a fossil, it is not hard to doubt its history.

It seems to me that from a purely scientific standpoint, all histories which lead to the current state are equally real. There isn't a single 'fixed' history, at least not insofar as models of physics have anything to say about it. But the physical world, from repeated perturbation and observation, has a remarkably reliable way that it works. And from what we understand of that way, something like Darwinian evolution is real. Within that context it is real, and if you doubt it within that context, you're just ignorant. But also its true that that 'context' is not the whole of reality, that there are other possible ways for nature to behave also, that transcend the way that we usually observe it to behave. So I agree that Darwinian evolution is not the whole story, and that although we're connected to our past, we are not wholly captive to it in the way that many people imagine us to be.

I think that when a person doubts everything that they don't like, or which doesn't fit a religious ideology they've embraced, then they just make themselves stupid. I've seen smart people do that. By doubting things that they find distasteful, and which their very existence stems from and depends on, they put themselves at war with their own minds. If we want to understand anything, or even exercise any kind of intelligence, we have to accommodate ourselves to facts also, even while we search beyond them. Evolution by natural selection can be transcended, but in order to do that we have to deal with it as a real constraint that has to be satisfied as far as it goes.