Thread: Dreams being other worlds, OBEs, Dream Sharing, etc

Originally Posted by summertime

could it be, that the soul and consciousness (pure awareness without thought)are one and the same? i think so.
take a look at this surgeon talking about a patient he performed surgery on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1oDuvQR08

I'm not so sure about this random youtube video, im not sure about that dactor. The video is also skipping, things could be taken out of context. And just in general this is not a very credible source. To address what you're saying... possible? Sure why not. Likely? Not so much. But just to be clear the soul has always been considered the consciousness as far as I knew... a soul is a consciousness seperate from any body.

Again in this video, this man deals with near dead. Pronounced dead doesn't even mean you're actually dead, just that they can't detect a pulse. And regardless... if one hallucinates predeath, and then awakens and either continues the hallucination with a resolution to it coming back to life or whatever, or just straight up the hallucination isn't happening as soon as you come back to life. If there was a lapse of NOTHINGNESS, in between the hallucinating before dying, and coming back to life. One might percieve the hallucination as DURING the lapse of nothingness. Because they simply didn't realize there was a gap of consciousness in the first place. To be sure, the woman in my link? She simply didn't realize anything had happened beyond a sudden skip in perception. But to someone hallucinating, percieving any such skip would be unlikely. They'd hallucinate... and then bleep out of existence... and then come back only remember the hallucination right beforehand and whatever happens now that they're awake.

By the way you can find loads of people saying they saw an afterlife, near death or after pronounced dead. The hilarious part is that none of their stories match up. Some people have their beliefs "verified", some have beliefs they never agreed with "verified" and in general we have people all over the world saying different gods and afterlives are seen during these sorts of experiences. Thus ultimately making it way more likely, that it's all just information from their brain going haywire.

Originally Posted by Verre

Agreed... but true skepticism is all too rare. A genuine skeptic is capable of doubting even what seems most irrefutably certain.

A genuine skeptic accepts that we're just little animals trying to make sense of things, but the sense we make of our experiences is probably a very poor match for the vast intricacy of the universe.

A genuine skeptic acknowledges the drawbacks and limitations of science as well as the flaws and irrationality of faith. To do any less is simply to trade one form of zealotry for another, while projecting the same self-righteousness enjoyed by zealots of all kinds, because it makes them feel superior to people with different ideas.

Genuine skepticism produces profound humility, not pride and contempt.

I concur with DeviantThinker. And being one of those assholes I can personally testify that I don't think skepticism is very important when it comes to TRIVIAL matters and situations. I believe it's crucial with the nontrivial though. But maybe I'm not trying to be perfect 100% of the time, only when it really matters. Also I believe shock factor and challenging things is also crucial. It all depends, and also some people are better converters than others are better destroyers. Some people are meant to change minds, others simply subdue the ones that are especially resilient. Also, contempt has a place in painting the narrative. It's important to frame the truth behind the opposition and sometimes the truth isn't pretty.

Now if I would actually explain my method? I actually am a person who talks a lot in absolute, not because I am infallible and my position can't be swayed. But the most logical position is the MOST true. The MOST certain. The MOST absolute. I mean anything a human spews is NOT those things, inherently so... but they are the closest we have to them. We should always treat the edge of our limits, the best of the best... as such.

@Anok

Creationists don't submit to peer review in the first place, in fact they actively dodge it. Thus factually, making it NOT SCIENCE. It's psuedoscience. Not only is Evolution a fact that is so well substantiated and verified that nothing can compete, but Creationism has not a single shred of valid evidence and in fact has been disproven time and time again.

You acknowledge what the scientific method is. So I'll grant you that what you're claiming is that simply, the majority may not always be using the scientific method. In the dark ages? Easily. But even then science pulled humans out of there kicking and screaming. And this was an era when like you said, a person could get murdered or imprisoned. These were barbaric times... we now live in a world where plenty of places would NEVER do that sort of thing no matter how much you're pissing the majority of people off with your ideas. And eventually the entire world will be like this across the board. The game has changes completely, even if science could stand to use better support from humans it's still more powerful than ever before. Not to mention that back when stuff like that could happen, that gave scientists all the reason to be like "shut up" to their own, to protect themselves. You know... so that genius next to them doesn't get them screwed over and dead or in jail. Now there is no such thing, you can express your curiosities and ideas freely. I never see it happen, it seems unbelievable in today's society because you would have to argue that the vast majority of scientists are ALL corrupt. NOT the scientific method itself, because that is incorruptible. It cannot be corrupted, the closest you can get is by a psuedoscientific method that isn't the legit method.

But going back a little... the biggest thing is that even if the majority of scientists were corrupt. That says NOTHING about the validity of the scientific method itself. And I disagree completely on when, where and how skepticism is in it's ideal form. Or that is to say, I disagree with when, where and how the scientific method itself is also ideal. I believe we humans need a social control system, in the past this was violence... and then rumors and ostracism... and then religion. In human civilization, religion is what keeps people in check. Well it used to, now it's massively run it's course... and what is to take it's place? Skepticism, along with the scientific method and other tools that commonly go hand in hand.

And it really depends man, most claims can straight up go against well established facts without the necessary validity to overthrow said established facts. In your case, all I'm hearing is that nothing of this sort has actually passed peer review. There might be quite a bit to what you're saying, but even if that is so again... it's ultimately not here nor there when it comes to the scientific method so lastly I will say that... if you're so bent on corruption of the majority of scientists against certain claims. Supply the claims, show how it's been falsified or not yet. Then show the corruption. Basically, show the corruption by way of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by Hukif

*snip*

"We don't know how the universe works"
I make no claims on the extent to which we do, but yes we do.

"but needing a reason for everything is not going to work. We don't need a reason for the universe to start"
I mean we kinda DO need a reason for the universe to start... at least a /how/ reason if we exclude "why" questions. We need an explanation for how it started, how it works. And yes needing a reason for things up until this point, is the only thing that has worked as well as it does. Nothing compares.

You're just waving a lot of "no needs" around so uh. I'm just going to move along.

Originally Posted by Verre

It is unfortunate that the denunciation of absolutism is too often perceived as a defense of relativism--another false dichotomy. Of course we should all be doing our very best to make rational judgments based on available evidence, and of course some judgments are better than others at evaluating and explaining the facts at hand.

The trouble is that, whether as individuals or as a society, we seem to be pretty bad at evaluating our own judgments. As individuals we are prone to strong confirmation bias, no matter how ridiculous our beliefs might seem to other people. As a society, our dominant beliefs are constantly shifting.

Today's dogma is tomorrow's hogwash. A hundred years ago, racist beliefs were supported by a very detailed scientific framework that has now been thoroughly discredited. A hundred years ago, manufacturers were adding radium--radium!--to products like lipstick, chocolate, and chicken feed, until it became impossible to ignore that people were dying from it. A hundred years ago, Freud wrote The Interpretation of Dreams, a book that doesn't have much to offer modern dreamers except as a historical curiosity.

So yes, we should be putting forth our best efforts to make rational judgments based on available evidence, but more than a little humility is still warranted, because in a hundred years people will look back and laugh at how silly and misguided we were in 2014. (Also, they'll say we dressed funny and had poor taste in music.)

I don't denounce absolutism outright and I'll admit that bluntly right here and now. I agree almost completely with Darkmatters, which @Darkmatters is why I've seemingly ignored you. I HAVEN'T, I just agree so much that I have nothing to add. Except where I want to explain that... it doesn't have to be a trap to champion an extreme. The real trap is getting stuck on one side. But in the same way that you're right... it's good to take a middle ground. But the grey area has intensity too, the middle ground has championing too. You can champion both sides at the same time, they are not always in conflict with each other... I mean hey, there wouldn't be a middle ground in the first place. The way I roll is, wherever I stand I turn the depth up to max. I'm going as deep with it as I can without things falling apart.

Back at Verre specifically... humility will not save you from looking silly and misguided, it won't stop you from looking however you were going to look. Everybody ends up looking good to some and bad to others. Sure this varies drastically but ultimately I don't even care as long as I did my best and I believe I am doing my best humility or not. Besides it's important to remember that when everything is so much bigger than you, you shouldn't care so much about where you end up in all of it as opposed to where you are in the present moment. Chillax man, enjoy life before all else.

Originally Posted by StephL

I'll come back to some other points made in this thread - just for now:



While I agree, that IronicSkeptic's speculation on the purpose of SP has no argumentative value against an existence of other worlds to be visited in dreams, because it doesn't pertain to it, it does make perfect sense in principle and on it's own.

*snip*

You've said exactly what I was meaning to in regards to that. But I think it DOES pertain to what I was saying. All you did was patch up the holes in what I was saying, though I never meant for it to actually be the real reason for SP I just meant that's an idea I've heard. What I meant was, that the fact of Evolution shows that we have the tools we do, SP included... for survival. So how the hell does entering another world fit?