Dream Ontology nitty gritty as experienced

[Posquant]

To begin, anyone who does not know what ontology "is" should wiki it. I see ... things I have never seen. Tech. Facilities. Beings. Cities. Vehicles. Tools. I see it all. Anti-grav. Nanotech. Time bending. Animatter. Flux overthrowing. AI. Names. Places (there). Dates (there). Dialogue. Narrative. It is all information. I am grist for its mill. It. Mine. We, ourselves and thou. I have a little project. Tech. Infotech. Now. Vastly convergent. Ooooh so powerful. So dangerous. Bliss to know the horror. Why are we here? What to do? What are dreams? Can we compile a multi-level ontology, thus? ELECTROCHEMICAL NEURONAL-COMPUTATIONAL QUANTUM INFORMATIC -Tempo -Spatio -Dimensional SUBSTANTIVE -Form -Story -Archetype -Realm DIRE3CTED....................................... Feel free to revise. PQ

[Licity]

Sorry, but... what?

[Specialis Sapientia]

[nerve]

you...are...mad.

[Souperman22]

[Zhaylin]

Universal dream symbolism... that's what I read in this. But I haven't looked up that word yet either... (ontology was it?)

[Licity]

Universal dream symbolism... that's what I read in this. But I haven't looked up that word yet either... (ontology was it?) Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of existence... In a dream, the usual rules of reality don't necessarily apply, do they?

[Zhaylin]

Ahhh... so it's more along the lines of "a man dreams he is a butterfly... or is a butterfly dreaming he is a man?" sort of thing?

[Licity]

Ahhh... so it's more along the lines of "a man dreams he is a butterfly... or is a butterfly dreaming he is a man?" sort of thing? Closer to "a man dreams he is a flux overthrow... or is a flux overthrow dreaming he is a man?"

[Zhaylin]

*polite and quiet lol* **now rushes off to find the definition of flux overthrow **

[Xaqaria]

Imagination is a wonderful thing, is it not?

[WakataDreamer]

An ontology would take too much time. Probably infinity, in fact. Therefore...

[Posquant]

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of existence... In a dream, the usual rules of reality don't necessarily apply, do they? Perhaps not the "usual" rules. Not mechanics. Not mere chemistry. But, yes, the usual rules for dream phenomenon DO apply. These are surely some of the same rules for consciousness itself. Not no rules. Everything is caused. It's just that we don't really understand the rules yet - or the structures and functions. It will take awhile to get to the bottom of it. And there will still be plenty of mystery, when we do. But the bio-computational building blocks are coming together. We can now begin to describe an ontological framework - as above - running under rules that do appear powerful enough to give rise to dream experience. Interesting days. Skeptics seem to assume, alternately, that science knows all there is to know, or knows nothing at all, about consciousness. The truth is in between, as usual. This stuff is so accessible. There's no excuse for not readng up. You can start here, with a cogent and succinct (if not definitive) quantum model of consciousness by Chris King. http://www.dhushara.com/book/paps/co...m#anchor217145 And there's no point in having an opinion about dreams or consciousness or mind, if you don't. The results may astonish you. The emerging picture is immensely beautiful, fascinating, powerful ... and sometimes downright scary. PQ

[Licity]

Perhaps not the "usual" rules. Not mechanics. Not mere chemistry. But, yes, the usual rules for dream phenomenon DO apply. These are surely some of the same rules for consciousness itself. Not no rules. Everything is caused. It's just that we don't really understand the rules yet - or the structures and functions. It will take awhile to get to the bottom of it. And there will still be plenty of mystery, when we do. But the bio-computational building blocks are coming together. We can now begin to describe an ontological framework - as above - running under rules that do appear powerful enough to give rise to dream experience. Interesting days. Skeptics seem to assume, alternately, that science knows all there is to know, or knows nothing at all, about consciousness. The truth is in between, as usual. This stuff is so accessible. There's no excuse for not readng up. You can start here, with a cogent and succinct (if not definitive) quantum model of consciousness by Chris King. http://www.dhushara.com/book/paps/co...m#anchor217145 And there's no point in having an opinion about dreams or consciousness or mind, if you don't. The results may astonish you. The emerging picture is immensely beautiful, fascinating, powerful ... and sometimes downright scary. PQ It's been theorized that the seeming randomness is dreams is actually governed by internal schemata. Understandably, this extends to seemingly random conscious thoughts as well. What do you mean by "ontological framework"? If it appears in a dream, it can be said to exist within the scope of the dream. And by the way, skeptics aren't automatically assuming science knows everything. If you want to change what is generally agreed upon, then you have to have PROOF. Claiming skeptics are close-minded is just a way of dodging the fact you have no proof. We can't just go around assuming that everything anyone suggests just because it sounds nice.

[Posquant]

What do you mean by "ontological framework"? If it appears in a dream, it can be said to exist within the scope of the dream. I mean the sort of biological computational schema for consciousness sketched by Chris King. What's seen in the dream, the objects, I dunno. Near, far, real, virtual? Who knows? But if quantum (or more powerful) info processes are in play, sky's the limit. We can't say not. And by the way, skeptics aren't automatically assuming science knows everything. If you want to change what is generally agreed upon, then you have to have PROOF. Claiming skeptics are close-minded is just a way of dodging the fact you have no proof. We can't just go around assuming that everything anyone suggests just because it sounds nice. Simply put, if skeptics claim science disproves the possibility of non-local effects (or much else) in consciousness, they are claiming more than science. And all you need to debunk conventional wisdom is to provide a counterexample. Or you could just offer a theory yielding a more robust explanation of more facts. Ok. I think our dreams themselves are counterexamples to the hypothesis that our conscious is strictly local. I'm still not sure whether or not you really disagree. But here's the rub. Apart from models like Chris King, there are NO accepted conventional brain-based explanations of consciousness. ... or dreams. None. It remains a black box. So Chris King's model is my "something" to that "nothing". It just so happens that the model posits quantum effects. There are grounds for doing so. And quantum effects have their own logic. The weird results (potential non-locality etc.) are not gratuitous add-ons. They tag along with any quantum mechanism. And anyway, because quantum effects are pervasive, any model that excluded them would be laughable. So. It also just so happens that, at the same time, quantum computing and unification theories make multiple dimesions and multiverses look likely. That's just what the cosmological theories say. And those cosmological theories are crafted to answer serious mismatch between general relativity and quantum mechanics. They have nothing to do with consciousness, per se. It's not hokey pokey. It's in Scientific American. Thing is, when you add it all up ... it throws anomalously detailed otherworldly dreams in a completely new light. The substance, scenes, as possibly "real", not just phantoms, after all. I can't help it if you don't like the result. Gives me the creeps sometimes too. But it is what it is. And in light of all the foregoing science - and ON THOSE TERMS - it's non-local information effects look like an increasingly likely explanation for dreams. But, of course, that's the minimal statement. Astral travel, souls and all that. We can't rule 'em out. PQ

[Licity]

Ok. I think our dreams themselves are counterexamples to the hypothesis that our conscious is strictly local. I'm still not sure whether or not you really disagree. Ah, the core of the matter. I disagree that dreams are valid counterexamples to the hypothesis that consciousness is strictly local due to the fact that lucid dreaming exists, the fact that multiple dimensions are only postulated by unproven theories, and the fact that it is thus far not known whether or not the brain composed of neurons made of multiple molecules working in unison is capable of reading information propagating on subatomic levels. Interesting theory in the link you posted, that chaos theory and the strange behaviors of particles on subatomic scales can be used to explain consciousness. How exactly does that lead into alternate universes?

[Posquant]

"(accepting nothing does not mean rejecting everything)" Semantics are sooooo clever! So easy! Tell ya' what, clever boyz. Just like a game! You tell me what you don't reject, after you're finished accepting nothing. The only catch: you can't not accept anything that you haven't actually considered! Then le's talk. Hope you got a big thick (don't digress please! not the point!) stack of books there in bed with ye ... Bye! lol s'tru pq

[Posquant]

Ah, the core of the matter. I disagree that dreams are valid counterexamples to the hypothesis that consciousness is strictly local due to the fact that lucid dreaming exists, the fact that multiple dimensions are only postulated by unproven theories, and the fact that it is thus far not known whether or not the brain composed of neurons made of multiple molecules working in unison is capable of reading information propagating on subatomic levels. You say "no"! Ok. If you say so. That's it? Don't bother to explain. Search. ASK. Don't bother to address what I explain. Easy! Interesting theory in the link you posted, that chaos theory and the strange behaviors of particles on subatomic scales can be used to explain consciousness. How exactly does that lead into alternate universes? Funny. You dismissed quantum brain effects offhand, above. Try to be more consistent? And try using quotation marks... at least reading more carefully. I didn't say anything " lead into alternate universes." Deny what you can. But your own ignorance will never justify you. PQ

[Licity]

"(accepting nothing does not mean rejecting everything)" Semantics are sooooo clever! So easy! Tell ya' what, clever boyz. Just like a game! You tell me what you don't reject, after you're finished accepting nothing. The only catch: you can't not accept anything that you haven't actually considered! Then le's talk. Hope you got a big thick (don't digress please! not the point!) stack of books there in bed with ye ... Bye! lol s'tru pq Okay... what? It would really help if you could be a little more clear with what you are typing. And if that "little catch" means what I think it does, then you want me to accept everything I have not considered. You say "no"! Ok. If you say so. That's it? Don't bother to explain. Search. ASK. Don't bother to address what I explain. Easy! Funny. You dismissed quantum brain effects offhand, above. Try to be more consistent? I never started agreeing with it. I still don't believe that the brain is capable of reading information on the subatomic scale. And try using quotation marks... at least reading more carefully. I didn't say anything " lead into alternate universes." Not in that post, no. But everywhere else you seem to be hinting at a theory that dreams are input from other realities on the basis that you dream of things you have not seen in waking life. And does not agreeing with you make me ignorant? Deny what you can. But your own ignorance will never justify you. PQ So disagreeing with you makes me ignorant, now?

[Posquant]

So disagreeing with you makes me ignorant, now? No. Your lack of a basis for disagreeing makes you ignorant. Your failure to question yourself and to engage with modern science makes you ignorant. And your belief that your denial of scientifically plausible POSSIBILITY requires no basis... makes you ignorant. Put it this way. What serious full-length books have you read about any of quantum physics, cognitive theory, neurology, chaos theory, information theory, game theory, phenomenology? I'm the one illuminating theory. This is what science tells us may be possible. You're the one denying it. Well. Have you read it? Bizarre. You pose as 'scientific' and 'rational' because you deny what's 'not proven', while denying what science itself says is possible. PQ

[Licity]

No. Your lack of a basis for disagreeing makes you ignorant. Your failure to question yourself and to engage with modern science makes you ignorant. And your belief that your denial of scientifically plausible POSSIBILITY requires no basis... makes you ignorant. Put it this way. What serious full-length books have you read about any of quantum physics, cognitive theory, neurology, chaos theory, information theory, game theory, phenomenology? I'm the one illuminating theory. This is what science tells us may be possible. You're the one denying it. Well. Have you read it? Bizarre. You pose as 'scientific' and 'rational' because you deny what's 'not proven', while denying what science itself says is possible. PQ There's a reason quantum mechanics and special relativity are so widespread. They've been proven over and over to be accurate. If your quantum model is so accurate, then why is determinism vs. duality still debated? And again, possibility doesn't necessarily mean its true. If I theorized that a pack of evil lizardmen live at the center of the Earth, do we immediately develop an army to drill downward just because it offers an explanation for earthquakes?

[Posquant]

There's a reason quantum mechanics and special relativity are so widespread. They've been proven over and over to be accurate. If your quantum model is so accurate, then why is determinism vs. duality still debated? And again, possibility doesn't necessarily mean its true. If I theorized that a pack of evil lizardmen live at the center of the Earth, do we immediately develop an army to drill downward just because it offers an explanation for earthquakes? Ok. We have as much evidence for the possibility of lizardmen as quantum brain effects? Same thing? Maybe. But you always beg the question. Can you prove there are no lizardmen? How about "Elves"? Assume they have the power of invisibility? Not so dense as you. Now. Prove they don't exist somewhere relavent to us here. Prove what's not connected, relavent, to this here. Then what? Only your fear is left ... 'cause you KNOW that it's possible. THAT is your fear. You fear infinity.... rightly. There's some scary sh** in all that. But that don't make it not fact. Tactically, you can't really (any longer? we know too much) exclude possibilities by simply denying or ignoring them. Better to understand them .. then fight them that way. PQ

[Licity]

Ok. We have as much evidence for the possibility of lizardmen as quantum brain effects? Same thing? Maybe. But you always beg the question. Can you prove there are no lizardmen? How about "Elves"? Assume they have the power of invisibility? Not so dense as you. Now. Prove they don't exist somewhere relavent to us here. Prove what's not connected, relavent, to this here. Then what? Only your fear is left ... 'cause you KNOW that it's possible. THAT is your fear. You fear infinity.... rightly. There's some scary sh** in all that. But that don't make it not fact. Tactically, you can't really (any longer? we know too much) exclude possibilities by simply denying or ignoring them. Better to understand them .. then fight them that way. PQ I can't prove there are no lizardmen. I don't deny them because I am afraid of them. I deny them because I have nothing in front of me besides anecdotal stories that they exist, along with scans and probes that say the center of the Earth is liquid and incredibly hot, and not hollow. Similarly, quantum brain effects are possible. We have no way to prove they are not. However, it is going to take something extraordinary to prove that they do exist. Right now, the only thing I have seen are thought experiments and small tests done with game theory to show that communication of some sort seems to be occurring. However, the games I have seen are not winnable without a deep knowledge of algebra. A big step in determining whether or not quantum-scale effects are at work will be understanding the brain more fully (we really don't know all too much about it at the moment). Once we can get far away enough from Earth to really test the EPR paradox we can get even more conclusive. I must admit though, the theory that quantum mechanics is responsible for free will really has me thinking.

[Posquant]

Similarly, quantum brain effects are possible. We have no way to prove they are not. However, it is going to take something extraordinary to prove that they do exist." I cut my teeth on logic, not empiricism, back in the day. After that, it was law - all as applied. Science or law. Same thing. Ranges of comprehensible facts change with our ability (willingness) to discern them. And rules themselves adapt to extemes of fact. I have seen this in China, as the legal system developed. Wow! Hellova trip. Not so easy to explain, convey, why I took to dealing with, as actual, all that science said was just possible. The Greeks abhored infinity. I just assumed it as actual. Didn't know any better. Then came up with my own limits. Existential. Phenomenological. Ethics-keyed, in fact. No power without ethics. No power or ethics, without information. Information to the powerful. Game theory and economics, applied to information, teaches much. Then what? Quantum ethics? An ethics of contextually variable universal all-to-all connectivity? Yes. In fact, that's my goal. Well. Being a lawyer and all that... it's what I do. I was so offended, as a lawyer, to think that there was no law over quantum telepathy. No quantum copyrights? No rule against quantum trespass? No way! Anyway. Yes. Your interesting experiment. Distance. The universe was not so old, before Hubble could see so far. I hear you. PQ

[RedfishBluefish]

Ok. We have as much evidence for the possibility of lizardmen as quantum brain effects? Same thing? Maybe. But you always beg the question. Can you prove there are no lizardmen? How about "Elves"? Assume they have the power of invisibility? Not so dense as you. Now. Prove they don't exist somewhere relavent to us here. Prove what's not connected, relavent, to this here. Then what? Only your fear is left ... 'cause you KNOW that it's possible. THAT is your fear. You fear infinity.... rightly. There's some scary sh** in all that. But that don't make it not fact. Tactically, you can't really (any longer? we know too much) exclude possibilities by simply denying or ignoring them. Better to understand them .. then fight them that way. PQ So why aren't you doing anything about the lizardmen? Do you know how many people earthquakes kill around the world? If you believe in them you have a moral obligation to deal with them.