Thread: Shocking and definitive proof of what dreams really are

I think your theory of dreams is dependent on a dualist notion of the self as immaterial from which the experienced world extends, and also on the belief that idea precedes matter, rather than a materialist-empiricist framework. Therefore I would contend whether your theory is scientific at all, as it does not apply the methodology of physics.

Would this thread better fit in philosophy, or even beyond dreaming?

Citations? Are there studies backing any of this up? It looks like a lot of interesting thoughts and assertions, but I don't see any proof of anything. It is intriguing though. I suspect you'd need to develop it into something with a lot more explanation, like a book, before people will be able to parse it all. Too much of what you say is just thrown out there with no explication. I'm sure you've thought it all through in much greater detail but you should provide more of that background thinking for others.

Dreams combine, balance, and include opposites. The ultimate unification of physics combines, balances, and includes opposites. I have provided clear, ample/sufficient, and reasonable proof, evidence, truths, and facts in my thread.

First of all, the facts are the facts. What I have presented here in not groundless and speculative theory. Indeed, it is very far from it. The physicists have never quite explained inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing. They admit this. This is ALSO clearly explained/proven by this thread.

Are you this Frank DiMeglio?

This book presents original and fascinating ideas regarding consciousness, life, being, experience, thought, emotion, desire, depression, anxiety, dreams, art, music, and genius. This book is an attempt to achieve a superior understanding and true growth of our being, desire, instincts, and of our consciousness in general (including thought, attention, and memory).

Please understand, Im not just trying to say you're wrong or anything, but to outright state that the few paragraphs you've presented here constitute proof of anything just makes you come across as rather arrogant. A little modesty goes a long way toward getting your thoughts accepted and examined more realistically - like the phrases I bolded in the blurb above. If you had used terms like that to introduce your theories you wouldn't be getting the kind of reactions you are now.

If your statements really do reflect scientific knowledge then why not add citations and links to further reading on the subjects? You can hardly expect people to just accept the statements you're making on your say-so.

Your sensationalism, the fact that you're here to promote your future book, the fact that you cite no research, the fact that you use caps (no, it doesn't make you sound smart at all), only contributes to the image of a person without real knowledge on what you're saying. I took 2 minutes to research you, and behold, this is the kind of argumentation the OP uses when he's talking about any subject:

We cannot (and do not) experience outer space. Because, do (and can) we actually/really/truly, fully/directly (including seen, felt, and touched), experience outer space AS IT IS? The answer is no.

Circular Reasoning at it's best.

Also, there's a sense of authority (without any proof that he knows what he's talking about) that shows up constantly on his blog. Some examples:

MY NEW BOOK IS REQUIRED READING ON THESE SUBJECTS.
Moreover, the new book clearly constitutes a major, important, fascinating, and fundamental advancement in our understanding of physics/physical experience.
The book is destined to be a best seller.

And then again:

All of this is clearly (and more fully and completely) explained in my new book (coming this summer). DonnaInk Publications.
This book is going to be a HUGE seller. AND, the book contains ALOT more ! !

Also, I don't know what's your intention, but it seems you're being intentionally dense and confusing on the exposition of your ideas: that steals value from whatever idea you're trying to sell, especially because you don't develop any idea at all, and commit several fallacies along the text (which by the way, is being spammed around the internet). I'll not even bother commenting on the argument themselves...they look credible, but that's merely because they have no substance at all.

I am Author Frank DiMeglio. My full name is Frank Martin DiMeglio. What matters is the content of what I have written here. Discuss only what is written here in this thread.

Stick with the facts. We are not here to exchange drama and personal insults. I am not here to play games. I am a very serious thinker.
Moreover, the facts are the facts, regardless of who comes up with them. We know this.

Additional and important proof is now provided as follows:

Full inertia is outer space. That is, it is the elimination of experience and thought by our very inability to actually/directly/truly/really experience outer space AS IT IS.
There is weightlessness, the space is black, and we are not touching anything. THINK ABOUT IT. It all makes sense.
Outer space precludes and destroys our being, thought, and experience. Accordingly, our ability to understanding outer space is significantly limited.

Dream experience involves half inertia and half gravity because it is that of the MIDDLE distance in/of space (seen, felt, AND touched).
The space is invisible and visible in fundamental equilibrium and balance.

Dream experience fundamentally, ultimately, generally, actually, theoretically, and naturally unifies and balances gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism and physics/physical experience (including seen, felt, AND touched).

Dreams fundamentally involve and balance the important relation of something and nothing.

Importantly, dream experience is potential/possible AND actual.

Notice that emotion IS manifest (and differentiated) as sensory experience and feeling.

During waking experience while standing, FULL GRAVITY is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. We always begin with simple, natural, typical, ordinary, and foundational/fundamental experience(s) in establishing physical fundamentals/truths. What is of concern here is the range of feeling/touch. (Notice that gravity cannot be shielded.)

Now, and VERY IMPORTANTLY, the maximum of feeling/touch/force/energy that is ACTUALLY experienced in dreams IS HALF of that in comparison to waking experience while standing. This constitutes excellent, fundamental, undeniable, and fundamental PROOF of what I have successfully demonstrated.

The caring and intelligent reader will diligently consider all that is written in this post IN ADDITION to my prior posts and thread.

I have all of the proof, facts, and truths that I need. This is clear. I have proven it.

ITT: Poorly informed self-promoter shouts recycled Platitudes.

Sufficient and reasonable proof, facts, and truths have been provided HERE (in my replies along with this thread) in support of my conclusions.

This thread clearly merits serious, substantial/meaningful, informed, thoughtful, significant, and intelligent discussion.

Delusions of Grandeur wafting about..

Ok first, this is very/extremely/insanely HARD TO READ. I do not know how you chose/decided to write LIKE THIS.

It's like trying to read a terms of agreement except less of a definite structure.


Now onto the actual points. You say half gravity alot, and you use it to 'prove' your theory that is also ultimate and actual (?) when you never even define what half gravity is. Most physics people hear gravity and go "oh ok, must be acceleration" but I don't believe that is what you mean by it, please explain....

You throw around alot of physics terms thinking it will help with your argument, one of the main culprits is electromagnetism. I really hope you know what electromagnetism is since the way you use it makes absolutely no sense.

Moreover, television does take the real/actual form and manifestation of ELECTROMAGNETISM. THIS CONSTITUTES PROOF THAT TV IS A VERY SERIOUS AND REAL PROBLEM.

Television USES electromagnetism to work, cause you know... it's AC, which means that it's sending out electromagnetic waves... that do stuff which has nothing to do with my well being or thought.

Also you say television is a very serious and real problem because it is 'fully similar' to thoughts except they are 'flattened'. I have no idea what you mean by flattened but television is no where near thoughts. Going into your confusing world, television takes on only 2 of the 5 senses (ESP not being considered) while the real world engages all 5 of the senses, and thoughts are not engaging any really.
Like you said thought "best describes sensory experience when space is invisible and visible in fundamental equilibrium and balance." When TV is doing ONLY visual and hearing, how can these two things be even remotely alike??


Now you really have to work on your writing, and remember THIS IS NOT A TERMS OF AGREEMENT and WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES TO GET MONEY, so this whole paragraph here.

Why do/would the modern, mainstream, academic, theoretical physicists, the academic dream theorists, the governments, and the beneficiaries, proponents, and advocates of television continue to evade and deny the facts and truths of what I have clearly and undeniably proven here? Well, who currently has, and desires to continue to have, authority here? More problems, more unnatural experience, more stupidity/ignorance, and more lies mean more money and more governmental intervention/size. The business of making money and excess profits (i.e., that of changing experience from what is natural, including power and control over experience, thoughts, and people) is apparently far more important than truth, reality, facts, great/proper/correct thinking, people, free experience, labor, our autonomy, our rights, our freedoms, our health, our growth, our privacy, independent and free thinkers, our children, the future, our self-sufficiency, and our FREE, extensive, integrated, enjoyable, desirable, sustainable, healthy, and natural experiences.

Could be turned into "Why do the modern official people continue to evade and deny the facts I have clearly proven here? Well, who currently desires to continue to have authority here? More problems and more lies mean more money. The business of making money is apparently far more important than truth."

You can see that these both will do the same job, except my version is easier on the eyes and I didn't use words that mean the same exact thing.

There is weightlessness, the space is black, and we are not touching anything. THINK ABOUT IT. It all makes sense.
Outer space precludes and destroys our being, thought, and experience. Accordingly, our ability to understanding outer space is significantly limited.

Outer space isn't actually black... it just has no matter floating around for light to bounce off of.

Dream experience fundamentally, ultimately, generally, actually, theoretically, and naturally unifies and balances gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism and physics/physical experience (including seen, felt, AND touched).

You can't say theoretically and actually to describe the same thing. It literally contradicts each other. It's like saying you believe that toast is brown and that it is also a fact that toast is brown, when it really is just that you're wearing tinted contact lenses that make you believe that. Horrible example but I really hope you get what I mean, you can't just say theoretical to sound fancy and sophisticated.

I think the fact that you're trying to convince us of what's simply a theory without solid evidence and saying that your words without any sure scientific backing whatsoever is "proof" enough for what you're trying to say, says less that you're here to share what you think or know and more that you're just here to try to get everyone to buy your book and/or follow your ideas.

I don't mean to insult, but honestly if you expect someone to believe something you say you at least need to back it with something else, something more solid than just your own word. We want citations and research and evidence and studies behind this, not the certain 'proving' word of someone who sounds more like they're trying to sell something. Very few people will actually fall for the latter, and the ones who do will still most likely approach it with some sort of skepticism or want to research further on it. It's rather arrogant if you expect everyone to believe you based on what you've told us so far, we don't know you and we can't rely on what you've said, of course people are going to ask for more information.

So with that being said (sorry for the rant), do you have citations? Research? Studies, anything? If not, your theories, whilst intriguing, remain simply unproved.

No - I don't want anything "backing this up" or references or whatever - there is nothing to be backed up.
This is seriously pathological thinking - trying to conjure up meaning out of empty word-shells - driven by a manic sense of ultimate revelation.

But anyway - valiant effort PKJacker - can't see it doing any good, though..

Well.. I have to agree with everyone else, that Frank might need to take it easy with the "proofs" and "truths". But I hope that this thread will develop more into a exchange between everyone's thoughts about the subject here eventually. Because I like to hear more about this theory. And PKJacker you made some good point's about the writing. I couldn't agree more, even if I write pretty messy myself sometimes.

^ A nice sentiment but since this thread started like an episode of Jersey Shore I don't hold much hope for it suddenly turning into Scientific American or Nova. Besides, when you really think about any of his statements, they just don't make any sense at all! Blather and gibberish.

Unless he comes up with an awesome definition of half gravity and full gravity, I doubt this thread will develop into anything useful.

Seems like he has given up this already. Maybe the theory wasn't much to discuss after all..

VISION begins INVISIBLY inside the eye/body. Dream experience involves gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism in fundamental equilibrium and balance. Dream experience involves fundamentally equivalent and BALANCED middle strength FORCE/ENERGY/FEELING/TOUCH consistent with what is half inertia and half gravity and the experience of the middle distance in/of space. Invisible and visible space in fundamental equilibrium and balance IS the middle distance in/of space (including seen, felt, AND touched). During waking experience while standing, FULL GRAVITY is full distance in/of space as it is seen, felt, AND touched. We always begin with simple, natural, typical, ordinary, and foundational/fundamental experience(s) in establishing physical fundamentals/truths. What is of concern here is the range of feeling/touch. (Notice that gravity cannot be shielded.)

Now, and VERY IMPORTANTLY, the maximum of feeling/touch/force/energy that is ACTUALLY experienced in dreams IS HALF of that in comparison to waking experience while standing. This constitutes excellent, substantial, fundamental, undeniable, clear, and foundational PROOF.

It all makes sense. This entire picture is consistent, complete, and clear.

There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

Position AND position relative to distance in/of space are BOTH united here. This is necessary for inertial and gravitational equivalency and balancing.

It's not that I'm fussy about things. But isn't equilibrium and balance pretty much the same thing?

(Notice that gravity cannot be shielded.)

I dont think that anyone except those who have been experienced weightlessness for real, could avoiding gravity in dreams. And since the majority of people have never felt anything else except gravity in different variations, then I believe that the brain just work with what it have been experience before. wich is, gravity in different variations.

Now, and VERY IMPORTANTLY, the maximum of feeling/touch/force/energy that is ACTUALLY experienced in dreams IS HALF of that in comparison to waking experience while standing. This constitutes excellent, substantial, fundamental, undeniable, clear, and foundational PROOF.

I just wounder what it is you see as important to what? And what is this proof you talking about? I dont try to contradict you here. but Im just woundering what kind of point you want to make clear with all this? Is it that we dont fully perceive feelings/touch/smell etc etc, or what is to your theory that is so revolutionary to you?

To claim any scientific proof it must go through the scientific method.

Steps of the Scientific Method:

• Ask a question
  
• Hypothesis
  
• Prediction
  
• Testing
  
• Analysis

Dreams themselves can't go through the scientific method. I guess you can do some scientific experiments on someones physical brain to get some results. However, it certainly would effect everyone differently. Having a theory is different then having actual proof. You can't have actual scientific proof of something if it can't go through the scientific method.

For example string theory is just that; a theory. We can't apply the scientific method on it. However the theory is based on current evidence.

Can your proof go through the scientific method without fail? If not it is a theory. Nothing wrong with having a theory.

Dream experience grows/increases, as dreams involve the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are. Indeed, dreams add to the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, thought, emotion, feeling, desire, intention, concern, and space in and with time. Notice here that the integrated extensiveness of thought is improved in the truly superior mind. There is no outsmarting the genius of dreams.

There is no doubt that we came alive in conjunction with the fundamental experience of our growth and becoming other than we are. Moreover, obviously, our experience, growth, and survival were ongoing/continuous. Accordingly, dreams experience is linked with waking experience; and yet it is separate. Notice that dream experience goes to waking experience, and waking experience goes to dream experience as well. In dream experience, we may remember waking experience; or we may not be aware of waking experience while dreaming.

It is undeniable and clear that dream experience and waking experience are linked and separate.

Dreams involve an essential and fundamental mastery of physics and physical experience.

Finally one can start to understand you better Frank. And your writing is much easier to read now.

Accordingly, dreams experience is linked with waking experience; and yet it is separate. Notice that dream experience goes to waking experience, and waking experience goes to dream experience as well. In dream experience, we may remember waking experience; or we may not be aware of waking experience while dreaming.

It is undeniable and clear that dream experience and waking experience are linked and separate.

Well as I understand, what you are talking about is nothing new. But, it is of course intersting matter to think and talk about. Another example to simplify this idea could go something like this: Love is one thing in it's own, but it is still dependent of hate to be function as love. And vice versa. So love and hate is integrated, and one of them could not be with out the other. So it is two different things, but still the same. It's like yin and yang. And so are dream and waking experince, they improve each other.

How can you say, there is exactly half the gravity in dreams?
There is as much gravity as I choose to dream of - and nope - gravity works just fine in normal dreams - and I can have it at different levels in LDs.
You can't measure anything in dreams - it's all your imagination! *Sigh*.