Thread: What is the evidence that dreams are produced by the brain ?

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Though I agree with both you and StephL, mostly because I think you're both saying the same things but StephL just wanted you to take what you said even farther, I do have to cherry-pick one item:



I'm not sure this is completely the case. Yes, current brain science is pretty advanced, especially in the "watching things light up" department, but from what I've heard, the actual hard knowledge of how it all works together is still pretty sparse (forget about the "why," BTW), and this knowledge is necessary to truly support or disprove the theories. So yes, there's tons of experimental data and fMRI scans that confirm that there is definable and consistent activities in certain areas when we dream (and others when we LD), but it seems that the more neurobiologists learn about the brain, the more they discover that they don't know yet, and also the more they discover they were wrong about in the first place. So brain theory itself is still in a state of pretty elastic flux, and likely will be for years.

That said, I also think that you will be very hard-pressed to find a neurobiologist who believes that dreams are formed outside the brain.

Indeed, I thought steph was largely agreeing with me, but I wasn't sure.

You are very right, the current brain theory has much room for more discoveries. I'm always astounded how often they improve it.
I did use the ambiguous phrase "to such a degree of efficiency" to cover myself in this case. I guess the current theory isn't faultless per ce, but I think you will agree that we have made enough strides in current brain theory to say that were the model shouldn't be too far off from the truth.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

... but I think you will agree that we have made enough strides in current brain theory to say that were the model shouldn't be too far off from the truth.

I certainly agree with that. Indeed, I have a neuroscientist brother who is riding the front of this particular knowledge wave, and he's pretty sure that that truth is less than 20 years away ... pretty much "tomorrow" in science-land!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Yes you certainly did. Not to be rude, but your post was a little hard to understand at some points. But i'll try tackle most of the points to the best of my ability.

Oh - I think, you understood me as I wanted to be understood.
Thank you for your time to go into such lengths to answer me in detail!
In general - when I do such a thing - I do not ask my conservation partner to do the same.

I know very well, how writing about things can take over hand.
Esp. about topics, where you yourself have got your opinion - your conclusions on all the many things, you have encountered.

My husband says - don´t try to convince people in the internet - that is one definition of madness.
And he has a point.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I'm sorry, I don't have a link to a particular article unfortunately. I'd look for it but I'm quite short on time. The essence of the article was that out of a total of circa 3500 experiments, a few hundred produced results outside of the error margin that were never fully debunked. Other scientists were skeptical about the results stating that the experiments where prone to error, but none the less the statistics still apply.
You should be able to find something worthwhile on google about it, if you look up ESP or telepathy.

Okay - might well do that - might well not - thanks!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Substantial, of considerable importance. Earlier I said that nothing has been exclusively proven in the telepathy experiments, I don't think a discrepancy like this can be yet fully considered substantial evidence. That is my opinion of course.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Ok then, the percentage was just used to make a point. I don't actually know the ratio, all I know is that the current brain theory works to explain most things to such a degree of efficiency that it is hard to fault it.

Yes - I see your point. The one from before and the one you make now as well.
And I neither have an idea about the percentage - except - a, really, really low one.
That was my point - but badly made.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Again you're right. That was again a mistake on my part. I should phrased that differently. Your cherry picking is starting to confuse me So much inputs and thoughts in this topic make it hard to write logically and concisely.

I do not see a mistake (any more..) and I very much think like you do.
At least that is what my intuition says.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

It's not flawed logic because I'm not taking precedence between theories. The scientific community uses Occams Razor as a heuristic to guide them through the development of a theoretical model.

You are right - it is not.
I thought to have read something, which you did but not write.
You wrote this:

Originally Posted by dutchraptor, before

When we make everyday choices we usually use probabilities. If there is a 90% chance of rain, we wear a rain jacket. The exact same logic is applied to choosing a theory. If one is currently producing brilliant results and has substantial evidence behind it, then it makes perfect logical sense to pick it and not some unusual idea that is equally valid to a million others floating around.

Even more so, instead of deciding on an entirely new theory, why not try to accept that maybe the current theory can be modified to accept your ideas. Because most scientists are certainly open to that idea.

I see now - yes.

Originally Posted by StephL, before

..
If you go that "the-neuro-biological-viewpoint-is-("only..")-probably-better-than-believing-in-spirits" way - you will never get rid of the historic analogies a lá earth is flat etc then - this also seemed very highly probable in the past.
..

Even worse - I did get it wrong there.^^
If we leave the way of mathematics - we can just as well not care for science.
You are right - science has to be open and decide on probability.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I was replying to astral boy's comment It it not really scientific thinking because there is no evidence, and there is others interpretations possible.

I agree with you.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

My reply was meant to show that scientists currently utilize Occam's razor because it usually produces good results, not because it is a method of producing an irrefutable theory.

Yeah - and that is one of the points, where I misunderstood you - you are right again.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

He is confusing the massive amount of study going into the current brain model because of simplicity for scientists choosing to neglect other theories.

He is - thank you for making this more understandable to me.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Ok then, the percentage was just used to make a point. I don't actually know the ratio, all I know is that the current brain theory works to explain most things to such a degree of efficiency that it is hard to fault it.

^^ Though I agree with both you and StephL, mostly because I think you're both saying the same things but StephL just wanted you to take what you said even farther, I do have to cherry-pick one item:

The following part is the picked cherry, right?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

all I know is that the current brain theory works to explain most things to such a degree of efficiency that it is hard to fault it.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I'm not sure this is completely the case.

What follows does not refute dutchraptor, though - as I understand you both..?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Yes, current brain science is pretty advanced, especially in the "watching things light up" department, but from what I've heard, the actual hard knowledge of how it all works together is still pretty sparse (forget about the "why," BTW), and this knowledge is necessary to truly support or disprove the theories.

Yes.

Some associations - see me jump at your brackets..

The why is important - because the basic problem is, that for a telepathy to happen - you needed a medium.
You can not test any medium, though - because there is none - known of.
The brain-waves - the electrical emissions shown in the EEG are in no way strong enough to suspect them of playing a role.

And to make that work - theoretical physics needed a makeover.
Which is exactly what is too often referred to in a lack of a direct argument I think.

I was misunderstanding dutchraptor in as far, as he did not imply to arrive at a 90% - 10% choice situation for once.
Neither did he imply that the Occam´s Razor heuristic is a method of producing an irrefutable theory.
My bad.
But - you learn from mistakes - I can tell myself!

And I did indeed want to say something along the lines of your last-cited paragraph, Sageous.
And got tangled up instead ..rolleyes.gif

Originally Posted by Sageous

So yes, there's tons of experimental data and fMRI scans that confirm that there is definable and consistent activities in certain areas when we dream (and others when we LD),

Yes - and that is wonderful!

Originally Posted by Sageous

but it seems that the more neurobiologists learn about the brain, the more they discover that they don't know yet,

Oh yes - and this is also wonderful.

I might dig it out - but these were the words of one consciousness-concerned scientist on a audio lecture series.
That is a classical science revelation, though.
Take physics, too.

There were times, where people thought, there wouldn´t be anything new discovered in neurobiology, psychology, etc..

Maybe on grounds of a believe in a "mind", which is not originating in the body.
So why do science on the brain, when it is only the tool of what you really want to know about.
Namely this "mind" being the "soul or "spirit" and this "entity beyond the physical" is just using the body as a bio-computer.
And this soul being in helpless dependency to a - capricious divine being(s).

Not a practical outlook I find.
But lovely you go my what we still don´t know route!
We could all be a simulation is not refuted, either, if I got that right?

Originally Posted by Sageous

and also the more they discover they were wrong about in the first place. So brain theory itself is still in a state of pretty elastic flux, and likely will be for years.

I rather think, neuro-science has been slumbering about - but it did not change in a direction away from the materialistic model.
The path taken is pretty solid - no - they do not start to change their minds - they just see, that there is so much more to find in this brain - it looks bigger, the deeper you look into.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

If one is currently producing brilliant results and has substantial evidence behind it

^^Exactly - continuously.

Originally Posted by Sageous

That said, I also think that you will be very hard-pressed to find a neurobiologist who believes that dreams are formed outside the brain.

Yepp!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Indeed, I thought steph was largely agreeing with me, but I wasn't sure.

You are very right, the current brain theory has much room for more discoveries. I'm always astounded how often they improve it.
I did use the ambiguous phrase "to such a degree of efficiency" to cover myself in this case. I guess the current theory isn't faultless per ce, but I think you will agree that we have made enough strides in current brain theory to say that were the model shouldn't be too far off from the truth.

I like your use of this "degree of efficiency" - nice!
I was indeed sure, we agree on things, just that there were small points to be discussed - and thanks for doing so!
Sorry for complicating things.

I seriously love this forum - for giving a forum - to such exchange!

Originally Posted by Sageous

I certainly agree with that. Indeed, I have a neuroscientist brotner who is riding the front of this particular knowledge wave, and he's pretty sure that that truth is less than 20 years away ... pretty much "tomorrow" in science-land!

One of my favourite neuroscientists is a German neurobiologist named Prof. Wolf Singer.

What follows is quoting him - I might have mixed something in from Metzinger (probably the second quote is Metzinger´s..).
It´s from a copy-paste document, ill-labelled.
Bit heavy duty - but why not?

Everyone has a rough idea of what is meant by consciousness. We feel that it is better to avoid a precise definition of consciousness because of the dangers of premature definition. Until we understand the problem much better, any attempt at a formal definition is likely to be either misleading or overly restrictive, or both. (Crick and Koch 1990, p. 264)

Insight often comes as a surprise. From a purely heuristic perspective, narrowing down the scope of one’s search too early certainly is dangerous, for instance, by making attempts at excessive, but not yet data-driven formal modeling. A certain degree of open-mindedness is necessary.
On the other hand, it is simply not true that everyone has a rough idea of what the term “consciousness” refers to. In my own experience, for example, the most frequent misunderstanding lies in confusing phenomenal experience as such with what philosophers call “reflexive self-consciousness”, the actualized capacity to cognitively refer to yourself, using some sort of concept-like or quasi-linguistic kind of mental structure. According to this definition hardly anything on this planet, including many humans during most of their day, is ever conscious at all.

Second, in many languages on this planet we do not even find an adequate counterpart for the English term “consciousness” (Wilkes 1988b). Why did all these linguistic communities obviously not see the need for developing a unitary concept of their own? Is it possible that the phenomenon did not exist for these communities?
Which ones??

And third, it should simply be embarrassing for any scientist to not be able to clearly state what it is that she is trying to explain (Bieri 1995).

What is the explanandum?

What are the actual entities between which an explanatory relationship is to be established? Especially when pressed by the humanities, hard scientists should at least be able to state clearly what it is they want to know, what the target of their research is, and what, from their perspective, would count as a successful explanation.

The other extreme is something that is frequently found in philosophy, particularly in the best of philosophy of mind.
I call it “analytical scholasticism”. It consists in an equally dangerous tendency toward arrogant armchair theorizing, at the same time ignoring first-person phenomenological as well as third-person empirical constraints in the formation of one’s basic conceptual tools.
In extreme cases, the target domain is treated as if it consisted only of analysanda, and not of explananda and analysanda.
What is an analysandum?

An analysandum is a certain way of speaking about a phenomenon, a way that creates logical and intuitive problems. If consciousness and subjectivity were only analysanda, then we could solve all the philosophical puzzles related to consciousness, the phenomenal self, and the first-person perspective by changing the way we talk.

We would have to do to modal logic and formal semantics, and not cognitive neuroscience.

Philosophy would be a fundamentalist discipline that could decide on the truth and falsity of empirical statements by logical argument alone.
I just cannot believe that this should be so. Certainly by far the best contributions to philosophy of mind in the last century have come from analytical philosophers, philosophers in the tradition of Frege and Wittgenstein. Because many such philosophers are superb at analyzing the deeper structure of language, they often fall into the trap of analyzing the conscious mind as if it were itself a linguistic entity, based not on dynamical self-organization in the human brain, but on a disembodied system of rule-based information processing.

At least they frequently assume that there is a “content level” in the human mind that can be investigated without knowing anything about “vehicle properties”, about properties of the actual physical carriers of conscious content.

Particularly from a phenomenological perspective, internality is a highly salient, global feature of the contents of conscious self-awareness. These contents are continuously accompanied by the phenomenal quality of internality in a “prereflexive” manner, that is, permanently and independently of all cognitive operations. Phenomenal self-consciousness generates “inwardness.”

I only have this "Which ones?" question as to which languages without the term "consciousness" he is exactly referring to.

Consciousness is what I got as an English term.
In German - I have a bunch of terms.
Does that count, I wonder - as not having the term "consciousness" or is it the same as "Bewußtsein"?

DV does have MelSchaedlich as member now - and she is a German researcher doing studies for which she needs lucid dreamers.
At least she just finished one.
If she gets active again - with interviews or whatever - she might ask for collaboration.
I would find that exhilarating, if something came to pass.

Steph,
Thanks for the post, nice to clear up some confusion. I was starting to doubt my own idea for a while, but now I feel much more solid. I think it's great that we can go into such lengthy discussions here purely for the discussion, and not for other reasons.

Ha look at that, this is my 2500 post

Originally Posted by StephL

Consciousness is what I got as an English term.
In German - I have a bunch of terms.
Does that count, I wonder - as not having the term "consciousness" or is it the same as "Bewußtsein"?

I think Bewußtsein is the very similar to consciousness, or awareness depending on how you use it. In english awareness and consciousness can be interchanged in many cases too.

I find it an entirely confusing subject. The day humans agree on a standard definition and explanation for consciousness will probably be one of the greatest milestones in human history (That's says something about the complexity of the brain and our existence).
It's magnificent that our brain provides an enigma so great.

Here's a funny comic on consciousness http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2867#comic

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Steph,
Thanks for the post, nice to clear up some confusion. I was starting to doubt my own idea for a while, but now I feel much more solid. I think it's great that we can go into such lengthy discussions here purely for the discussion, and not for other reasons.

Ha look at that, this is my 2500 post



I think Bewußtsein is the very similar to consciousness, or awareness depending on how you use it. In english awareness and consciousness can be interchanged in many cases too.

I find it an entirely confusing subject. The day humans agree on a standard definition and explanation for consciousness will probably be one of the greatest milestones in human history (That's says something about the complexity of the brain and our existence).
It's magnificent that our brain provides an enigma so great.

Lovely answer!

And - woohoo - 2500 posts!!
Halfway 5000!

Sorry I'm on my phone so my post won't look amazing. Lol

Thanks for your questions. Thanks for trying to understand.

You asked "From where or what does it come from?"
It comes from the Self. (Your real you) I will use "me" because I talk from my experience.
My dreams are my non physical experiences, downloaded by my physical brain, because I am connected to it while my body is alive. I am not my brain, not my body... I just use it. Because for a physical dimension I need a physical body. It is like the movie Avatar. It is like this text that you see on your screen. You see it in black on a physical screen but it comes from me, not your screen. I am not this text, I use it as a tool, like my body.
In the same way the activity that you see in the brain show you ONLY that it is active, alive. It does not show you that it creates it. My thoughts, dreams, ideas, beliefs, all my mind, mental is with me, not in my brain. I use my brain for my physical body, it is the director of my physical body, but I am his director and I'm independant of him. And of course my thoughts, dreams are instantly traslated by the brain. I make no effort for this. My brain and my body will die, not me. I am above birth and death... Just like you.
The thing that says "I am" is not the brain. The thing who thinks is my awareness, it is me. Not my body. You can forget who you are, where you are... But you never forget the "I am".

You ask me about my source or link of "shared dreaming and monks". Sincerly I don't remember the name of the book. But not only they have shared dreams (this is not even important, I dont know why you insist with this, even if they don't do there is people who do...), but they also have my theory. They don't want conflict or debate with science because for them the world is illusion, a dream. For them, like for me and much other people who know their real Self the mind is indepedant of the physical. I admit it is very hard to prove for the science, because we deal with non physical. And the day it will be proved, the economy will look bad, believe me. They prefer to tell you that you're a machine who need this and that, who have no power without this or that. Your experience will prove it to you, don't believe my words. Don't ask church, scientists or your books who you are. Because it is Money. Ask yourself. All outside you is just opinion. Only your experience is knowledge. Reading is not knowing.

It is sad when I see you copy/pasting. Because you believe theories, opinions. You accept it blindly and repeat it. You are blinded by the effects instead of searching the cause. You look the apparence instead of searching the source. You forget that what is theory today can be obsolete tomorrow... Think about the "Earth is flat" and people who was called fools because they didn't believed it. And don't forget that it was commun knowledge.
Now if you say "the earth is flat" you will look stupid.
And this is just one exemple...

One of you said : "the brain-dream" theory explain 99%"
Really? For me it explains nothing. Sorry. It shows only that a brain is active and that there is activity"
It looks like you're just a materialistic, close minded person. I say it looks, I didn't say "you are". You are not sure about all you paste here, and even if you doubt you search only what confirme what you think... What I say is my experience, not a copy/paste. Before I was like you, I learned from others,So I had doubts, when I learned a better theory I rejected the old one. But now there is no doubt. Because it is the truth, not theory.

"It is easier to fool people than convince them that they were fooled."

I know it is very hard to accept something that contradicts your belief, because it is the Ego. It protects it, even if it is false. So I'm aware that people who are endoctrined won't accept what I say, I understand it. You have beliefs, you protect it. Normal.
But what I say it is my biggest conviction, I live it every day, I know it, It is NOT my belief, I didn't read it, i didn't learned it... I experienced it. What you tell me is your belief, you learned it from books or people. You have to understand the difference between believing something and knowing something.

Theory is an opinion, belief, interpretation. It is not "knowledge". To know you have to be.
The day you will know yourself all the actual science will look so ignorant to you.

Sorry for the long text, and sorry it can sound very sureal what I said. But ...Know thyself.

Peace.

I was thinking about this...

"For those who KNOW (who have experienced) no scientific proof is necessary. For those who don't know, no proof is possible."

When you eat an apple you know what is it's taste. You can't know it by reading it. And no scientific experience and no book can show it to you. Once you know the taste no book or person can change what you know. When you don't know people can tell you it is like this or that, you can imagine and accept it as fact. But even if you accept it you don't know it. A person who readed the taste of an apple can't argue with the person who experienced it...

Are you really talking with me, astralboy?
Fascinating.

And there was me getting into an argument with dutchraptor, because I foresaw exactly this part of your answer:

Originally Posted by astralboy

You look the apparence instead of searching the source. You forget that what is theory today can be obsolete tomorrow... Think about the "Earth is flat" and people who was called fools because they didn't believed it. And don't forget that it was commun knowledge.
Now if you say "the earth is flat" you will look stupid.
And this is just one exemple...

One of you said : "the brain-dream" theory explain 99%"
Really? For me it explains nothing.

Sorry. It shows only that a brain is active and that there is activity"

Here my quote concerning, what I expected you to say from last page:

Originally Posted by StephL

But once you (dutchraptor and "you" as in everybody..) once you say - these other theories are - ..somehow scientifically valid - you open the door to go free-wheeling on the delusion scale - what I mean is - a personal experience will be seen as enough of a cornerstone for building a completely alternate system.
If you go that "the neurobiological viewpoint is probably better than believing in spirits" way - you will never get rid of the historic analogies a lá earth is flat etc then - this also seemed very highly probable in the past.

Yeah - that was what I was getting at - I expected you, astralboy to use exactly that analogy - once more.
And it still does not hold.
Sigh.

A knowledge is not gained by navel-gazing alone, but by reading, listening, experiencing - sure - but hell - not only!!, perceiving, thinking, pondering - gaining insight, talking ..
Doing proper science especially!!
Do you think, we ever would have found out only a tiny bit of what we did with such an attitude?
Going - "only what I think, believe, experience first-hand is valid?"

No input wanted?
Nobody else´s points even considered - a priori knowledge - I call it delusion, even if that might not be the best word.

What you say makes perfect sense to any religious person, I suppose.
There we have the gap.

Originally Posted by astralboy

It is sad when I see you copy/pasting. Because you believe theories, opinions. You accept it blindly and repeat it. You are blinded by the effects instead of searching the cause.

It looks like you're just a materialistic, close minded person.
I say it looks, I didn't say "you are".

How sweet - of course you didn´t really cast all these personal attacks at me - you are just saying it looks like..

Originally Posted by astralboy

You are not sure about all you paste here, and even if you doubt you search only what confirme what you think... What I say is my experience, not a copy/paste. Before I was like you, I learned from others,So I had doubts, when I learned a better theory I rejected the old one. But now there is no doubt. Because it is the truth, not theory.

I really do stand behind Wolf Singer - doo not worry - I have read, understood and come to my very own conclusions.
I just would like to know the languages he refers to.

You have fully bitten into my not planned strawman of "doing copy paste".
Niice!

Before something goes into my sloppily denominated copy paste department - I am sure, I find it exceptional, inspirational, compelling - you name it..
You can believe me that.
Singer is able to express himself very, very well - so I find it silly to paraphrase.
Also - his English is better than mine..

Originally Posted by astralboy

I was thinking about this...

"For those who KNOW (who have experienced) no scientific proof is necessary. For those who don't know, no proof is possible."

When you eat an apple you know what is it's taste. You can't know it by reading it. And no scientific experience and no book can show it to you. Once you know the taste no book or person can change what you know. When you don't know people can tell you it is like this or that, you can imagine and accept it as fact. But even if you accept it you don't know it. A person who readed the taste of an apple can't argue with the person who experienced it...

You want to read up on Qualia - that is where you are erring about now - or so it looks to me!

"A knowledge is not gained by navel-gazing alone, but by reading, listening, experiencing - sure - but hell - not only!!, perceiving, thinking, pondering - gaining insight, talking ..
Doing proper science especially!!"

I will let Albert Einstein answer to you : "The only source of knowledge is experience."
If all that you know is from books, talks then you know nothing. Sorry. When we talk about things like consciousness, you can't know it from reading.
This is the biggest problem...a very beautiful illusion. Thinking that you know something because you read it. You can read what is flying... but you don't know it until you fly.

My Question was "WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT DREAMS ORIGINATE FROM THE BRAIN ?"

There was answers, there was opinions, there was beliefs but no one of you have the Evidence. So re-think your theory. I'm sure if I talk to a real scientist, he will agree that the actual theory is not "100% sure", It is not a fact. Because a true science, a true scientist is based on Evidence. The activity in the brain is not an evidence that dreams originates from it. Searching actors in the TV is wrong.

I dont really know where I should begin right know, but I just start with the what I belive is the main reason of this thread. I can really feel what Astralboy is trying to say here, becaus what Astralboy do try to explain is in my opinion pure logic. And with that said, I dont agree that exactly every word or sentence is pure logic of what he has said here. And that's just with the consideration on some statement he has might expressed in a way as truth's. And thats already been debunked in this thread.

It has been obvious to me that there been some big battle going on in here, and I think every one knows why, if you give it a tought. I cant claim that what I believe or think is right, and I also think that no body really cant claim that theire right about anything as long as we are in this materialised form as human beings. But every one can speculate and try to understand things, and really get something valuable out of it. So it is also a good thing that people believes in diffrent things, because otherwise we would just end up to one conclusion that this is the truth! And we eventually stop learning and end up with similar experiences, and with very limiting contrasts of all our experiences. There is an quote you all probably already heard of, but it goes something like this i think. "The more I learn, the less I know".

So back to the heart of this thread and the question "What is the evidence that dreams originate from the brain?" As already said, the main truth and answer if you look at it from a logic perspective, would be. No body know. And this thread could be closed after that. So the reason with these kind of questions should not lie in getting the right answer, but rather exchange toughts, Ideas, believes and then in a constructive gentle way try to see if those toughts might be a possible theory. All this thinking got to be in a balance as good as possible between spirituality and science and logical thinking. It's easy to get frustrated when there is unbalance between these ways of thinking.

A last thing. Ask youre self this question. Why you do engage in certain questions, and putting energy in them? No need for answers here about that, but It's really worth thinking about for your self.

Originally Posted by astralboy

"A knowledge is not gained by navel-gazing alone, but by reading, listening, experiencing - sure - but hell - not only!!, perceiving, thinking, pondering - gaining insight, talking ..
Doing proper science especially!!"

I will let Albert Einstein answer to you : "The only source of knowledge is experience."
If all that you know is from books, talks then you know nothing. Sorry. When we talk about things like consciousness, you can't know it from reading.
This is the biggest problem...a very beautiful illusion. Thinking that you know something because you read it. You can read what is flying... but you don't know it until you fly.

You are wilfully misinterpreting what I wrote.
I did indeed myself say that experience and direct first hand experience is a crucial part of gaining knowledge.

But I made a point to state, that it is never enough to take this as the only source for building an opinion.
Because you simply can´t have thought about and experienced absolutely everything pertinent yourself.
Not even a lot.
You did read certain texts and watched videos yourself, with which you try to argument your view.

Do you think, science is worthless - completely worthless?
Do you suggest, that with this saying of Einstein - he is declaring all of theoretical and practical physics background null and void?
Seriously?

This background does have to be read about to a large extent - you can not re-perform ever single experiment yourself - even if you are Einstein.
He is known for his a bit controversial proverbs.
I think, he should have better stuck to physics - not to constantly be abused in such discussions.

Originally Posted by astralboy

My Question was "WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT DREAMS ORIGINATE FROM THE BRAIN ?"

There was answers, there was opinions, there was beliefs but no one of you have the Evidence. So re-think your theory. I'm sure if I talk to a real scientist, he will agree that the actual theory is not "100% sure", It is not a fact. Because a true science, a true scientist is based on Evidence. The activity in the brain is not an evidence that dreams originates from it. Searching actors in the TV is wrong.

You are right - and we - "your opponents" - like you seem to treat us - have pointed this out ourselves at times, too.

There is indeed no such 100% proof.

And with the heuristics of probability - Occam´s Razor - you can not conjure up a 100% definitive theory.
That was what I had to acknowledge dutchraptor not claiming.

But there are tons of substantial evidence, that dreams do originate in the brain, and do not come from some outside spiritual sphere.
Most studies, trying to get evidence for that spiritual interpretation failed miserably.
Maybe all failed - some less miserably, though.
Some seem left for reassessment, it sounds like, when I read dutchraptor.

Again: dutchraptor did not - and neither do I - propose that there is definite evidence against your argumentation!
Sageous seems in my intuition even flirt with the idea himself, but would never claim to know the truth.
He says - he does have his own experiences in the "beyond" - but could not even prove it to himself to be valid.
Let alone to somebody else.

Please correct me, you two, if I got something wrong (again).

And there might even be evidence - which needs to be re-assessed - towards your point.
Notice my "might".
I needed a comprehensive review of all studies concerned here to see for myself.

But you can not (at least not rationally..) ignore the probabilities of these theories.
You for once needed a completely new theory in physics - not only "brain-science" and theology.

And you pitch against 99++% of modern science solely your highly probably biased and fundamentally somewhere flawed personal experiences.

Don´t tell me, you believe that your interpretation is flawless throughout.
If you do - this discussion makes no sense - and surely you don´t claim to be all-knowing anyway.
Thinking one is absolutely 100% percent correct with such a home-brewed world-view is another definition of madness.
And you do not seem mad to me - just - well - irrational.

Another thing - you proclaim spiritual freedom - may I ask you if you believe in a divine being(s) - and if so - whom/which ones?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I dont really know where I should begin right know, but I just start with the what I belive is the main reason of this thread. I can really feel what Astralboy is trying to say here, becaus what Astralboy do try to explain is in my opinion pure logic. And with that said, I dont agree that exactly every word or sentence is pure logic of what he has said here. And that's just with the consideration on some statement he has might expressed in a way as truth's. And thats already been debunked in this thread.

It has been obvious to me that there been some big battle going on in here, and I think every one knows why, if you give it a tought. I cant claim that what I believe or think is right, and I also think that no body really cant claim that theire right about anything as long as we are in this materialised form as human beings. But every one can speculate and try to understand things, and really get something valuable out of it. So it is also a good thing that people believes in diffrent things, because otherwise we would just end up to one conclusion that this is the truth! And we eventually stop learning and end up with similar experiences, and with very limiting contrasts of all our experiences. There is an quote you all probably already heard of, but it goes something like this i think. "The more I learn, the less I know".

So back to the heart of this thread and the question "What is the evidence that dreams originate from the brain?" As already said, the main truth and answer if you look at it from a logic perspective, would be. No body know. And this thread could be closed after that. So the reason with these kind of questions should not lie in getting the right answer, but rather exchange toughts, Ideas, believes and then in a constructive gentle way try to see if those toughts might be a possible theory. All this thinking got to be in a balance as good as possible between spirituality and science and logical thinking. It's easy to get frustrated when there is unbalance between these ways of thinking.

A last thing. Ask youre self this question. Why you do engage in certain questions, and putting energy in them? No need for answers here about that, but It's really worth thinking about for your self.

Well said.
I do in my above post already make it clear and in fat that indeed - "nobody knows it" is the only answer available.
"We" are just arguing for not going astralboy´s way to select your worldview.

From all the stuff flying about, knowledge-wise - to say it sloppily - it should not come down to taking your worldview from personal experience alone.

Plus maybe only those sources, which do happen to agree. Or even just appear to agree - I feel, that "The Tibetan Book of the Dead" could fall into exactly this category here.

And the usual sources often being worthy of justified doubts - this supposed CIA-ex-agent is a good example - surely nobody on here can know about his´claims validity.
Ruppert Sheldrake is another good example - with him I know about his theory of "morpho-genetic fields" being busted.
And I even might remember it correctly, that it was not only debunked - but the "data" exposed a right-out-fraud.
Not sure in the latter department - maybe I will go into that - maybe not.

Same with the classical bringing in of an Einstein-proverb going towards the mysterious - I am so fed up with reading these.
There are many.


Buut:

What I really find great is that you advise for more kindness in the "battle of the posts on an internet forum".
That is important - and easily forgotten.
And even if only for the very sake of the argument.

Somebody you shoot at will per default not be convinced by your - even if really compelling - arguments.
Common sense says - defend yourself against such a rude person.

And yes and no to his logic - like you said.
That makes this discussion and thread worth my while, I find.
He does indeed have a logical point, namely that nobody can disprove his theory.

Let me throw some pet-theory of my own in - highly unlikely - but as far as I know, not (yet) completely given up on, even by cosmologists.

Namely:
We could all be a simulation in some advanced being´s computational arrangements.
Not exactly 'Matrix' - but something along these lines can also not conclusively and absolutely be disproved.

Got to go over my videos "What We Still Don´t Know" once more.
That is where I got this from - at least I cite my sources.

Like in another thread, where I put forth a statement, thinking to have read pertinent data - and I had to come back into that thread after searching The Internet and coming up with the opposite.
Maybe I just echoed somebody like - well - us - normal humans, to whom indeed applies:

The more you know, the more you know, what you don´t know.

We even had this exact point before twice at least in this thread from "my camp"..

Edit: Link for this thread of mine and to the cosmologists: http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...%B4t-know.html
Look for the three videos, whoever is interested - it is not in "Are We Alone? but in one of the two others.

"There is indeed no such 100% proof."

Yes, so there should not be conclusions. Like I said I don't ask you to believe me, But don't confirm their theory because there is no evidence. Science should say "I DONT KNOW" because they don't know. They can observe the effects but the CAUSE remain invisible to them.

"Do you think, science is worthless - completely worthless?"

No, science is amazing when it is real science, when their conclusions are based on facts, on evidences, when you can verify, or experience it.
But science is 0 when they talk about Life, Universe, Consciousness... They know nothing about it and even if they don't know they make theories. Big Bang for exemple who saw it? Who experienced it? And who can experience it? There is No solid evidence. All scientist don't even agree... There is so much confusion. People need to say sometimes "I don't know". Because I don't know if there was a Big Bang, I didn't saw it, I didn't experienced it. You don't know neither. You can just believe it like you believe in God. It is Faith.

"You proclaim spiritual freedom - may I ask you if you believe in a divine being(s) - and if so - whom/which ones?"

No, Like the Big Bang theory, the Evolution theory... I didn't saw/Experienced it. So I can't believe it or pretend know it.
It depends what do you mean by "divine". I can say YES I believe in divine beings because we are divine. For me my nature is divine, our nature is divine. Even an atom is divine. And it is. Everything is divine, but it is "natural". I don't believe in God, in Big Bang, in evolution, in creation ... because I can't verify it. When I don't know I say it. I believe in what I live and what I know. Consciousness is divine, and consciousness is the force behind all matter. Our real nature is just consciousness. Our dreams and our life is a projection of our consciousness.

I hope you don't mind, Astralboy, but I'm going to make another attempt to slightly change the subject -- though I do think this twist is very relevant to your OP:

Originally Posted by astralboy

You asked "From where or what does it come from?"
It comes from the Self. (Your real you) I will use "me" because I talk from my experience.
My dreams are my non physical experiences, downloaded by my physical brain, because I am connected to it while my body is alive. I am not my brain, not my body... I just use it. Because for a physical dimension I need a physical body. It is like the movie Avatar. It is like this text that you see on your screen. You see it in black on a physical screen but it comes from me, not your screen. I am not this text, I use it as a tool, like my body.
In the same way the activity that you see in the brain show you ONLY that it is active, alive. It does not show you that it creates it. My thoughts, dreams, ideas, beliefs, all my mind, mental is with me, not in my brain. I use my brain for my physical body, it is the director of my physical body, but I am his director and I'm independant of him. And of course my thoughts, dreams are instantly traslated by the brain. I make no effort for this. My brain and my body will die, not me. I am above birth and death... Just like you.
The thing that says "I am" is not the brain. The thing who thinks is my awareness, it is me. Not my body. You can forget who you are, where you are... But you never forget the "I am".

Okay, I get all that; indeed, I even find myself agreeing with much of what you say here. But you still didn't answer the question I asked: Let's accept for the moment that "You" are indeed separate from your physical body. Where, then, are "You?" What is the source for your thoughts, your dreams, your personality, your soul? Not what, but where is the person driving your human-body-avatar?

I thought this was a good question to ask (and for anyone, not just you, to answer). If you don't want to bother answering, or consider it too much of a subject change, that's cool -- it's your thread, after all! I won't bring it up again, I promise...

StephL I just want to say that I truly respect all your thoughts according to what you know and have learned. I get the impression of that you might see us two from the "spiritual-team" as pretty hardcore spokespersons about other dimensions. Im do not claim that Im in any team here, but I do share Astralboys thoughts about that this world might have some deeper meaning then all this materialised stuff that IS our reality as we know. Our reality is just to real for us to ignore, so nobody cant really argue about that.

Im not really here to convince anyone about anything, it would be to hard for me to try to explain all the toughts I've had and all conclusions I've had thru the years about why I believe in the things I do. StephL you asked: if you believe in a divine being(s) - and if so - whom/which ones? I cant really say that I believe in a certain being or whom. But what I can say is that I believe that it might actually be a continuation after this material life where we are just continue as pure consciousness. That's what I truley believe in today. And with those toughts, do also positive toughts taken over my old more negative toughtpatterns in a great way. And all these tought's do I test every day, thru logic thinking only.

A question for all who like to answer. What do you believe in when it comes to living at this planet earth. Are we just materialised human beings, or might we be only consciousness in the end? and how much time do you think that you have spent trying to answer that question on what you are?

StephL I did some how miss out one of your posts what it seems. So I just want to say a thing or two. One thing you said here cought my mind a bit since it's a well known thing to happen very easily when there are different believes about anything. You said: Somebody you shoot at will per default not be convinced by your - even if really compelling - arguments.
Common sense says - defend yourself against such a rude person. And I would say that makes perfectly sence, and it's a health way to think, because otherwise would your whole worldview would just go rollercoasting with out chance to put youre feet down for a while.

But what really occur when two different minds get eachother to question them self a bit, then there are expanding of the minds. So what I really like to say, is that we probably never will agree on echothers toughts here fully. We have to agree to dissagree in the end. And I think that this is probably nothing new to anyone here, but now I said it.

First of all - Sageous nails it on the head here - so please Astralboy - feel as if you have been asked this very same question by me as well! And please do not feel insulted by me speaking in the third person of you below - that is a direct answer to DreamyBear and not meant in any such way..
smile.gif

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL I just want to say that I truly respect all your thoughts according to what you know and have learned. I get the impression of that you might see us two from the "spiritual-team" as pretty hardcore spokespersons about other dimensions. Im do not claim that Im in any team here, but I do share Astralboys thoughts about that this world might have some deeper meaning then all this materialised stuff that IS our reality as we know. Our reality is just to real for us to ignore, so nobody cant really argue about that.

Thank you DreamyBear - you made me pause with your post before.
That is always a good and constructive sign.

And - I will use these ; ) guys for this here, too.

Your impression is - luckily - incomplete!
There is something, which I experience in a bad way as the "Spiritual Team" indeed.
And neither Astralboy nor you fall in this category to me.

Astralboy, because he has an unusual consistency and also a logic to his world-view.
But sometimes, I simply refrain from using my energies on a camp-fraction, which seems - well - hostile.

But I still find it worth my while to argue with him on his suggestions - between and directly on the lines.
His suggestions as to how to choose your world-view from.

Okay - he says they are his conclusions. Fine with that.
Not to convince him - I don´t think, I can.
But to help readers refraining from coming to conclusions, which are potentially - well - short-sighted.
If that makes sense in the motive-department.

In the end I do go into more hard-core arguments as well - even on a less than solid basis.

Otherwise I couldn´t post from using time on all the research needed - but I want to post.
So I enter threads like the http://www.dreamviews.com/extended-d...hook-hoax.html as well.
That as a side-note.

And you I experience as one of the few open minded "beyonders", whom I have encountered in a more direct interchange, DreamyBear!
Same goes for Sageous on here - and others in this forum.
What a great place!
Did it again..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Im not really here to convince anyone about anything, it would be to hard for me to try to explain all the toughts I've had and all conclusions I've had thru the years about why I believe in the things I do. StephL you asked:

Originally Posted by StephL

..if you believe in a divine being(s) - and if so - whom/which ones? ..

I cant really say that I believe in a certain being or whom. But what I can say is that I believe that it might actually be a continuation after this material life where we are just continue as pure consciousness. That's what I truley believe in today. And with those toughts, do also positive toughts taken over my old more negative toughtpatterns in a great way. And all these tought's do I test every day, thru logic thinking only.

Well - I am here in this thread to provide a part of the counterweight to Astralboy - in my way.

I personally would find it highly interesting - and in a respectful manner - to hear all these thoughts of yours!

Actually - similarly to me posting - well - pasting - the Wolf Singer/Metzinger quote(s) ..
Gathering valuable thoughts.

And I see the point of comfort, too - hard to argue on that one, as a materialist..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

A question for all who like to answer.

One??

I take revenge on you for luring me out of the window that far, with posting that long an answer!



Okay - these are my views - just spontaneously - there is always some flux:

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

What do you believe in when it comes to living at this planet earth.

I believe that "we" can take the essence of our consciousness out of our brains, maybe even.
On another medium for example.
But it stems from within the brain - and all your physical being of course.

Take for example the hormone excretion of the adrenal gland.
Under double regulated brain control - secreting Adrenaline and Noradrenaline - the latter of which does affect the brain a lot.
So - better take all the body.
The heart might actually indeed go into synch with EEG - not a theory - just a hypothesis, I read.
But that is off-topic-total - nasty habit of mine..

So - we could indeed aim at immortality and independence of the physical - but we have to do it ourselves and for the first time in human history.

With Science and "Thinking" and "Interaction" - the latter including Reading about other´s thoughts - best from the thinker of the first place.

That changes the very electricity in my brain.
I lay down memories and fire up associations.
And since this is not a lecture - but an Internet Forum - I let fly a bit..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Are we just materialised human beings, or might we be only consciousness in the end?

Yes - we are just materialised human beings.
Yes - we might in the end be only consciousness! That would be great. And - to the stars, of course..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

and how much time do you think that you have spent trying to answer that question on what you are?

Most my life.





"We" are indeed our consciousness - for lack of a better term.



Again: Please Don´t Forget Sageous And My Question over all that "chatter" of mine, Astralboy - and whoever has an interesting thought on it!

@Sageus

It is really amazing that you try to understand what I say because my goal is to make people think.
So thank you.

Your question is funny because you think in terms of time and space. You think that I am bound by space or time. I am the soul or the awareness or the consciousness, call it as you want. It is beyond time and space and all physical laws. My body is not really separete from me... It is somehow my projection, it is recreated every second, but it looks solid and stable. Even my dreams and my life is just a projection of my mind. My thoughts aren't me. They are my tools. So when my physical body sleeps, I go "out" of it in other dimensions where time and space don't exist. There is dimensions that are less manipulable than others. (watch the video Flatland by DR quantum, il explains dimensions). But there is no really IN or OUT... It is all ONe, it is Mind. Like in the movie Matrix. Time and Space exist, but only in this dream (life). Once I'm "out" they are nothing for me, like the gravity. It does't touch me.

For exemple: imagine you are playing a video game... Gta for exemple. Imagine that you know that the character is not really you but just your tool. But imagine that other people in that game are not lucid, they don't know it. They take it all seriously lol. You don't care what scientist in the game observe in your character's head, you know that You are behind your Tv. You know what you are. You don't fear to die in the game because you know that the weapons can't touch the real you... You know that you existed before and will exist after that game party.
I see life like that because of what I know. What I experienced.

The day I understood this I saw my physical life as a dream, like in my dreams I see my thoughts, expectations, fears ... Becoming matter. Now I consider my self as a lucid dreamer in this physical life, I don't see the difference between dreams and this life. The only difference is that in dreams my thoughts become facts instantly... And there is no physical limits. In this dimension there is Time. So it takes time.
(matrix or avatar are amazing movies for thinking about all this)

I wish every human could KNOW it. Because the Truth that you can experience is far grater that the actual theory. They told you that you are meat, bound by this or that... The experience will show you that you are something beyond words and that you choose the experiences in your dreams-life.

Are you dreaming? Lol

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL that was some necessary cherry-picking I would say. And I can only agree about everything you said. So let's move to the book then. It was a couple of years ago since I read the book. But to youre question if the book to me seemed like "bulletproof-ness" or more like inspiration, I definitely would say that the book felt more bulletproof. I base that credibility on the 32 packed pages in the back of the book with her sources to this book. And it took her 8 years to finnish the book. So I warmly recommend "The Field".

Just another aspect to this thread, is that I think that it might be more appropriate to take on a more philosophical standpoint to these kind of questions before bringing in all the scientific facts. And by saying that, I dont try to claim that science should not be part of the game. because I think every part has it's own important function to make this discussion, an interesting one.

Uuups - missed your post!!

And you are absolutely right - this is such a deeply philosophical matter - to only come from hard science is not satisfyingly fruitful.
Same goes for pre-formed belief systems of the spiritual.
Philosophy should work as a common ground.

Thank you for that answer - I might get my hands on a copy of "The Field" of Lynne McTaggart - correct?
But - I just now had a bad case of uaargh..!!! reaction, when I read about her other book: 'What Doctors Don't Tell You'.
Sure as anything - there are things, doctors don´t tell you.
And if you had in hindsight the choice - many of the things I mean - would have confused, depressed, driven you into despair etc.
You might choose to not have known some "thruths".

Anyway - she seems to rally against child vaccination - and that is plain irresponsible bordering on criminal.
Avoiding vaccinating your children is not allowed, actually - for things like Polio.
It leads to spreading and to dead other people.
And new resistances.

Got to say - this deters me strongly - while having maybe nothing to do with the other book of hers.

Originally Posted by astralboy

@Sageus

It is really amazing that you try to understand what I say because my goal is to make people think.
So thank you.

Your question is funny because you think in terms of time and space. You think that I am bound by space or time. I am the soul or the awareness or the consciousness, call it as you want. It is beyond time and space and all physical laws. My body is not really separete from me... It is somehow my projection, it is recreated every second, but it looks solid and stable. Even my dreams and my life is just a projection of my mind. My thoughts aren't me. They are my tools. So when my physical body sleeps, I go "out" of it in other dimensions where time and space don't exist. There is dimensions that are less manipulable than others. (watch the video Flatland by DR quantum, il explains dimensions). But there is no really IN or OUT... It is all ONe, it is Mind. Like in the movie Matrix. Time and Space exist, but only in this dream (life). Once I'm "out" they are nothing for me, like the gravity. It does't touch me.

For exemple: imagine you are playing a video game... Gta for exemple. Imagine that you know that the character is not really you but just your tool. But imagine that other people in that game are not lucid, they don't know it. They take it all seriously lol. You don't care what scientist in the game observe in your character's head, you know that You are behind your Tv. You know what you are. You don't fear to die in the game because you know that the weapons can't touch the real you... You know that you existed before and will exist after that game party.
I see life like that because of what I know. What I experienced.

The day I understood this I saw my physical life as a dream, like in my dreams I see my thoughts, expectations, fears ... Becoming matter. Now I consider my self as a lucid dreamer in this physical life, I don't see the difference between dreams and this life. The only difference is that in dreams my thoughts become facts instantly... And there is no physical limits. In this dimension there is Time. So it takes time.
(matrix or avatar are amazing movies for thinking about all this)

I wish every human could KNOW it. Because the Truth that you can experience is far grater that the actual theory. They told you that you are meat, bound by this or that... The experience will show you that you are something beyond words and that you choose the experiences in your dreams-life.

Are you dreaming? Lol

Cool that you answered!

As stressed repeatedly - that was my question to you too!
And if you read my answer to DreamyBear above - and my simulation-hypothesis before that - you might see that the difficulties and differences seem to be eloping in the bunches between what you describe and what I think.

My only caveat is - this is not already "true" - so "I believe".
Matrix and Avatar are science fiction.
It is on us to make something as science-fiction - but desirable and possible true eventually.
Or go down trying.

Might be wrong - as repeatedly stated - I can not know it, if you are correct or not.
I just advise against such a view.
With little bordering no lucid dreaming based experience, now that I think of it (yet!)..

I like this exchange even more, now.

Thank you for that!

StephL to your longest post, I would just like to say that It was an really interesting reading just like the rest of your posts, and I do indeed would like to explain all my toughts behind my believes. But that would seem like mission impossible for me since everything conects together in everything I do in my life. Im pleased with your honest opinions/answers though. So back to the book then. I see your point about that she might be critical about particular things. And I would consider that a good thing to question everything, especially one owns toughts from time to time. I saw her book:"What Doctors Don't Tell You", to on her website. But I feel that, that's a thing on it's own if you compare the two books. I only get the impression that she might be critical to things we might take for granted or what seems like truth's in many peoples opinion. And just about the polio vaccine thing. I dont know what she believe could be a good replacement for that, but if there would be no replacement good enough to that vaccine. Then I would disagree with such a claim to, wich may be just the case here. But with that said, I also know that there have been vaccines that has caused more damage then good. I would still recommend the book "the Field".

About Sageous question: Let's accept for the moment that "You" are indeed separate from your physical body. Where, then, are "You?" What is the source for your thoughts, your dreams, your personality, your soul? Not what, but where is the person driving your human-body-avatar? The source/soul to what makes me. The "I". Would for me if I may guess, be the bodys "electricity", when the body dies, this "electricity" leaves the body. But nothing else except that leaves the body what I know.

It would work in the same way as Bruce lee once said it: "If water is put in a cup, it beccomes the cup. And if you put water in a tea-pot, it beccomes the tea-pot". So if you look at a glass of water, then we could say that this is a glass of water, nothing more nothing less. but if we pour it in to the sea, then it would beccome the sea/ and the rain and so on. And I think that it might be the same with the spirit as I call it. When that energy leaves the body, then it might find it's true home in the universe. And the short vacation in the body has passed. Same with the water in the glass.

Originally Posted by Sageous

What is the source for your thoughts, your dreams, your personality, your soul? Not what, but where is the person driving your human-body-avatar?

I thought this was a good question to ask (and for anyone, not just you, to answer).

Astralboy's point of view reminds me of that of another dreamer, Rene Descartes. ("cogito ego sum - I think, therefore I am.") Descartes asserted that all his philosophic ideas and theories came to him in dreams or just before waking up.

If one subscribes to Descartes' theory of mind/body dualism, your first question becomes unanswerable because of false assumptions inherent in the phrasing of the question... specifically the assumption that there is a "source" which creates the soul and personality. In the context of dualism the soul, spirit, or whatever you want to call it, does not stem from some other source, but is itself a source....a source that creates its own personality, thoughts, dreams, etc.

As to your second question, Descartes opined that the body, being of the physical world, has mass, and is located in space and time. The spirit/mind on the other hand is not of the physical world, has no mass, and is not located in space or time... although it impinges on the physical world.

My question is; Have there really been any significant advances in our understanding of the human spirit and consciousness since Descartes' day?

N.