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

That I find pleasant, Nailler!
Cheers for that - however you mean it from the point of view you have on these topics - I am grateful not to be dragged into these two just now and here!
smile.gif

I was trying to make an example back in this thread, and It was brobably not a easy one. But I got a new one now that will be a easier one.

Example: If there was a person who lived at a planet all by him self, without any other living thing ever existed on that planet what so ever. If that person dont have the feeling that he got someone there, and that he not have the feeling of being alone. Then what would he be? Would he be alone any ways. Or would he be lonley and not lonley in the same time?

(A.)If you think that he would be more lonley any way, then why do you think so?

(B.)If you think that he's not lonley any ways, then why do you think so?

(C.)And if you think he would be lonley and not lonley in the same time. Wich of those two answers will he be most likley to be then?

(D.)And if he would be considerate most likely to be more of one answear than the other one. Then what makes that statment more likley to be the truth, if both answers could occur at the same time?

This is for everyone who dare to answer, I already got my opinion in this one. But if your not open-minded enough. Then I think this example will show your failure to not be enough open-minded. So let's test this out every one!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I was trying to make an example back in this thread, and It was brobably not a easy one. But I got a new one now that will be a easier one.

Example: If there was a person who lived at a planet all by him self, without any other living thing ever existed on that planet what so ever. If that person dont have the feeling that he got someone there, and that he not have the feeling of being alone. Then what would he be? Would he be alone any ways. Or would he be lonley and not lonley in the same time?

(A.)If you think that he would be more lonley any way, then why do you think so?

(B.)If you think that he's not lonley any ways, then why do you think so?

(C.)And if you think he would be lonley and not lonley in the same time. Wich of those two answers will he be most likley to be then?

(D.)And if he would be considerate most likely to be more of one answear than the other one. Then what makes that statment more likley to be the truth, if both answers could occur at the same time?

This is for everyone who dare to answer, I already got my opinion in this one. But if your not open-minded enough. Then I think this example will show your failure to not be enough open-minded. So let's test this out every one!

The answer is B, since you specified that he is not lonely. Being alone does not necessarily mean that you are lonely. And in the context of the situation it is also likely that he wouldn't be lonely since he lived his life on his own, so the concept would be foreign to him.

lonely = sad because one has no friends or company
alone = having no one else present

One does not (necessarily) lead to the other.

Dutchraptor, I first tought you got It. And that in a way I actually didn't take in consideration. But according to the meaning of the word lonely, after I looked it up. Your answer unforunatly didn't debunk my example after all.

-causing or resulting from the state of being alone a lonely existence-

-isolated, unfrequented, or desolate-

-without companions; solitary-

Both sad and isolated, etc etc. Is then something to take in consideration. Wich make this example even more complex now. So who is more right or wrong in wich answer that should be the true one then? This is also an aspect to consciderate in this question. Good try though, Dutchraptor!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Dutchraptor, I first tought you got It. And that in a way I actually didn't take in consideration. But according to the meaning of the word lonely, after I looked it up. Your answer unforunatly didn't debunk my example after all.
Both sad and isolated, etc etc. Is then something to take in consideration. Wich make this example even more complex now. So who is more right or wrong in wich answer that should be the true one then? This is also an aspect to consciderate in this question. Good try though, Dutchraptor!

Thanks but you're misunderstanding the situation.
Being alone is a physical property. Being lonely is a state of mind. One can be lonely whether or not there are people around him, one can only be alone when there is no other person present.
The proper definition of lonely refers purely to the state of mind of a person.

The proper definition of lonely refers purely to the state of mind of a person.

Yeah but lonely seems to have more definition to it then just a state of mind. Here is an example I found "being without company" Does that mean that it got to be a sad moment or not a sad moment? I would say that it got two definitions. So both definition will be equaly true depending on, in wich way you want to see it from. I think you have to look up the word lonley a bit better.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Yeah but lonely seems to have more definition to it then just a state of mind. Here is an example I found "being without company" Does that mean that it got to be a sad moment or not a sad moment? I would say that it got two definitions. So both definition will be equaly true depending on, in wich way you want to see it from. I think you have to look up the word lonley a bit better.

Company in this case is referring to people you like, not just any random person. There is only one definition, you are the one who should look it up. The reason lonely only refers to the feeling is because the word alone already describes the physical situation fine.
There is no ambiguity in the term, I have never, absolutely never heard someone using the words alone and lonely interchangeably.

Look up "difference between alone and lonely" in google and you will find pages upon pages clearly showing the distinct difference between the two words.

Look up "difference between alone and lonely" in google and you will find pages upon pages clearly showing the distinct difference between the two words.

I see your point now Dutchraptor. The word lonely seems after all, just refering to human feeling. So I rest my case about this one.

Yes, dreaming is product of your thumb. When you cut the thumb off, you won't be able to dream.

Yes, dreaming is product of your thumb. When you cut the thumb off, you won't be able to dream.

And since your brain seems to be smaller than your thumb Nfri. Then this idea seems to make a lot of sense

This is likely a bit late, but:

Originally Posted by StephL

Please tell me, which point do you refer to Sageous?

The whole post, basically, but I guess this paragraph best sums up the point:

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously. One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Yeah but lonely seems to have more definition to it then just a state of mind. Here is an example I found "being without company" Does that mean that it got to be a sad moment or not a sad moment? I would say that it got two definitions. So both definition will be equaly true depending on, in wich way you want to see it from. I think you have to look up the word lonley a bit better.

On language:
I see you are taking "alone" and "lonely" from a dictionary - the latter is a state of mind - the former an objective observable fact.
They are not synonymous, they do not mean the same. And it is clear what and what not they do mean, each.
The following is explanation overkill - you will understand it this time..
We in German have the exact same situation - I suppose this goes for Sweden as well.


Being alone - that means, no other living being is around - something objectively observable.

Being lonely - that means feeling lonely - something subjectively observable, and only subjectively, except you express your loneliness to an observer.


There are four combinations - all fully realistic and happening all the time on this planet:

1) You can be be with others (=not alone) and feel lonely anyway - for example if you do not know them/they do not understand you.

Or - the usual state of affairs:
2) You can be with others (=not alone) and fittingly - you do not feel lonely.

Other two cases:
3) You can be without others (=alone), and feel lonely.

Or - less often, it is an art:
4) You can be alone (=without others) and don´t feel lonely anyway.

That is clear as daylight.
4) is even a recurring theme in literature - somebody mature enough, to be alone for a long, long time, without "becoming" lonely (=developing the per definition negative feeling of loneliness).

DreamyBear - I am afraid, you tangled yourself up in the meaning of two simple words - alone and lonely.
So - dutchraptor has wrapped this up already ..

Example: We often say things like - the stool is alone in the garden - meaning there are no other stools there.
But did you ever hear of a lonely stool?
Outside of little children´s books full of cars with eyes etc.

Common sense tells us, a stool "is not lonely", because it has no feelings - right?
That is why we do not try to console inanimate objects in such cases.



It is in generally difficult to disentangle your sentences, because what you write is semantically and syntactically often not clear and consistent - maybe by mistake, from there being in-clarities in your English expression.

Example: If there was a person who lived at a planet all by him self,

Starts with a person being male by default - but well, who does it not like that - not many (cheers Sageous! ).

without any other living thing ever existed on that planet what so ever.

Then comes "any other living thing" - a thing is by definition something not alive.
You tell us here, there was never another living being on that planet.
What you do not tell us - does the person know from some other sources, that there are other entities theoretically existing in the universe?

Also not if he is a person evolved as a social species on another planet.
Maybe such genetics would lead the person to be prone to such a sentiment as "lonely".

If that person dont have the feeling that he got someone there,

To have somebody there = to not be alone.

To "feel that somebody is there"/"is not there" is a neutral observation in general, with a feel attached seemingly in an unclear way.
How I think, you want to be understood is "to be convinced of one´s observation, that nobody else is there".
Fhe "feel" verb can be substituted by "say", "witness", "think" - being alone is not a feeling, but an observation, loneliness is a feeling.

and that he not have the feeling of being alone.

You say just before, that he observes and acknoledges the fact that nobody is there (= being alone).
But now you say - he does not have the feeling of nobody being there (= being alone).
This is contradictory - and what you wanted to say was rather the following, wasn´t it?

and that he not have the feeling of being lonely.

That would constitute case 4) scenario of my combinations:

4) You can be alone (=without others) and don´t feel lonely anyway.

But remember - first I had to sort your language - you used "alone" and "lonely" synonymously - and that is semantically wrong.
That means - you got the meaning of the words wrong.

Not so much of a challenge, when I first have to make your argument (a bit more) sound for you.
To then show you, that there is no paradox whatsoever!

Then what would he be? Would he be alone any ways. Or would he be lonley and not lonley in the same time?

He would be alone - per your definition he is alone which - once more only means being separated in space and time from other life.

If he would feel the negative emotion called loneliness, or not, on top of that fact of being alone , which he acknowledges intellectually, as you propose, does depend on several premises:

If he does not know, that there exist any other living beings than him - the mental concept and emotional content "lonely" is questionably not developed in him.

Except maybe the negative feeling of loneliness can in some sort of emotional "qualia"-way spring directly from within the brain on a genetic basis, back from his´race´s phylogeny, and can spring forth without the person being socialised prior to that.

The question here would be, it feel to him the same way, in these cases, as it would feel later on - in hindsight, after a future hypothetical socialisation has taken place, and the person is consequently put into isolation once again?

I doubt it would subjectively feel the same, at least not quantitatively.
Even if such a spontaneous negative emotion could arise from isolation of a social animal as such.
But only when one had have company before, or at least can imagine company - can there arise the state of being unhappy from missing company = loneliness in the full expression.

(A.)If you think that he would be more lonley any way, then why do you think so?

Where does "more lonely" come from now suddenly? We have not established yet, if he feels loneliness or not!

(B.)If you think that he's not lonley any ways, then why do you think so?

Do you mean -
a) he is not lonely, despite being alone?
a) Or do you mean he does not have the possibility to feel some sort of that feeling of loneliness - see my reduced rest programming from the phylogeny of social animals?

To a) Maybe, and highly likely he is not feeling lonely in a classical sense, at least if he has no knowledge or imagination of other beings.
b) No - I can imagine there being a certain residual negative emotional content, which feels qualitatively similar to the "real deal" if compared subjectively in hindsight by that person.

(C.)And if you think he would be lonley and not lonley in the same time. Wich of those two answers will he be most likley to be then?

Not applicable - he is not an emotional Schrödinger´s Cat or some such.

(D.)And if he would be considerate most likely to be more of one answear than the other one. Then what makes that statment more likley to be the truth, if both answers could occur at the same time?

They could not both occur at the same time - four combinations - two with (=L), and two without loneliness (nonL), two while being alone (A), and two while not [B]being alone (nonA).

A+L
A+nonL
NonA+nonL
NonA+L

This is for everyone who dare to answer, I already got my opinion in this one. But if your not open-minded enough. Then I think this example will show your failure to not be enough open-minded. So let's test this out every one!

So - do I get the marshmallow?
Did you come to an understanding, what it is you were talking about, and what you were proposing, and thinking highly of, as a demanding riddle/thinking-practice/challenge?
And that it is nothing else than semantic meanderings - only you not knowing the exact meaning of two English words - and please do not consider playing coy now!

Now you do know these meanings and we know, that you do!
It is bordering on un-intended self-irony on your part, sometimes - but - no offence meant - only an adequate answer to a boldly stated challenge but obviously with no valid content what so ever.

You have thoroughly fallen on your nose with your first stab at a formalistic logical conception - but laudable, that you gave it a shot - seems my bringing in of info at least seems to inspire you, if knowingly or not.

Right - next conundrum - somebody else, maybe?
Or thoughts of other nature to nurture this thread of ours..?

So - do I get the marshmallow?

You might even get two StephL I see that you have done some great work in debunk my example and I dont doubt that you are right in all your debunking. Because of Dutchraptors point of the word lonley vs alone. Then I know that this example is not valid anymore. So I rest my case in what I liked to prove with my example here. So free marshmallows for all

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

But from which world do dreams come? Both, maybe?

Originally Posted by Sageous

This is likely a bit late, but:

Originally Posted by StephL

Please tell me, which point in Nailler´s post from which the below part is quoted) do you refer to Sageous?

The whole post, basically, but I guess this paragraph best sums up the point:

Originally Posted by Nailler

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously.One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

Not too late - thank you Sageous!
I will answer to the part of Nailler´s post, which you have quoted above directly - but please you and everybody else, who finds she or he has an answer to one or some or all of this - do answer as well - not only going in direction Sageous/Nailler!

Basically - it is sort of nicely written - but it contains nothing noteworthy or even pertaining to your, Sageous´ questions.
Here - once more the really very good question:

Originally Posted by Sageous

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?

What is in that quote?

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously.

Two vastly different worlds.
What should that mean - different in which respects exactly?
What criteria are there to set the two apart - what can be done in the one, that is impossible in the other?

One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted.

In science outcomes can not be uniformly predicted.

This argument, that scientists can never find out the truly interesting things, because these would lie where science does not expect them is repeated over and over and again and again and over and over in here like a broken record..

It has been shown to be wrong and prejudice.


But okay - lets once more beat that dead horse:

Everything in science is a reaching for a goal never achievable - complete knowledge.
It is science´s very nature to have a world-view, which is constantly being changed, refined, thrown out the window, and cried after, from which one can finally free oneself with a new and better one - all this over and over again - that is science in actual fact!!

Often it is shown, that with a new, more sophisticated theory - more predictions can be made (incl. in statistically significant amounts - but also in general/qualitatively).
That is why there was Newtonian physics and then there was Einstein and Schrödinger and other paradigm-shifts or expansions.

So - your basic statement to the material world is not only meaningless in any descriptive, defining sense - it is incorrect, and without a doubt.

As you yourself did make a point of putting forth - the scientific community repeatedly changed the whole interpretation of the physical reality in at times drastic manner - paradigm shift - like flat earth, tectonic plates, ..


But here now you throw all together - how can the material world - the reality we live in be defined by the supposed behaviour of human scientists?
Is it their fault, that physical reality is not more beautiful - because they seem to be put forth here as description for the "material" as in "not spiritual" world?

That makes zero argumentative sense - you (Nailler) come from Descartes Dualism and would be better advised to call that world the physical reality as investigated by science, maybe?

And I do believe, that we live in one world at a time - that is reality as I see it - one whole reality..
There does not lurk in the occult the "spiritual world" somewhere in the Transcendental**.
This is only your wishful thinking, no more.

The world I live in is the world of atoms and light and gravity - of galaxies and beating hearts and dreaming creatures.
And sure, the Higgs boson, too - why not? And we have many wonders in this material world, science does love so much - like the double nature of light - particle and wave at the same time - the famous double-slit-experiment for example.

Spoiler for refresher of memory:

from Wikipedia - just felt like it right now..:
The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

In the basic version of this experiment, a coherent light source such as a laser beam illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate. The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere, producing bright and dark bands on the screen—a result that would not be expected if light consisted of classical particles (i.e., small chunks of matter). However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. This result establishes the principle known as wave–particle duality. Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include particle detectors at the slits find that each photon of light passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), but not through both slits (as would a wave).

Other atomic-scale entities such as electrons are found to exhibit the same behaviour when fired toward a double slit. Additionally, the detection of individual discrete impacts is observed to be inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical mechanics.

The world of flowing blood - circulating hormones, about-rushing neuro-transmitters and finally - synaptic communication with electrical current spikes being translated into chemical transmission - or jump directly, electrically further on.
Whole systems are defined by connectivity - regulatory, negative or positive feedback-loops are in place and different sections of the brain light up, when you make their activity visible.
And there are as said resonances, oscillations - phenomena of that range are complex and intricate.
There are known memory processes, which lay down and work over information on a molecular basis.





the other is the world of the mind and spirit.

What does this world consist of?
Where is it?
Does time have a meaning in that realm of only mind and spirit?

And why have a "mind" as well?
Define the difference between mind and spirit - all of you, who care to do so.
What can one do, that the other can not?
I think, you say, the mind is a property of the brain, do I understand this correctly?
And the spirit something else altogether?
Why both in one world then - why not the mind in the material world with the brain, it´s residence?

In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o

I behold the conception of beauty in my mind, in this world. Does not your mind do the same for you - in this world - in your brain?
My point of view takes on a personal position on the perception I have - a loving one, basically.

My eyes bring in fodder for very many different systems of my brain and consequently influence and in interplay with all my body - and I might then interfere with reality outside of my mental workings - you - over my computer, for example.

A lot of different areas start firing in unison - they tune in to a synchrony-configuration, which in itself is the inner representation of this perception of yours of a beautiful flower.
For example per secreting endorphins, other neuro-transmitters and triggering other signal molecules, which do their work all over the body and mind-brain.

A part of me brings in the associated knowledge - like the formula h2o - and maybe I am inspired and paint a wonderful picture with molecules and flowers - who knows?
Another, deeper area has centres for eliciting positive emotions and all goes into synchronous interplay with memory and self-concept and associations available.
And I experience the - largely chemically induced - feeling of positiveness characteristic to beholding subjectively perceived beauty.

We all love that feeling.
And it is created by fine-tuning harmonies in swinging resonances - sounds nice as well, maybe - and says more about actual reality.


What I am to do with the next sentence, though - I do not know:

there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands

Clever things.
Things, that can not be touched.
At least not by human hands.



Again - in actuality - it is a post directed towards you, Sageous, because I do not understand, what you find to be an excellent point in this post.
No offence meant to neither of you - but I just do not grasp, what in that post does make the difference to the other posts in here on the topic ?


One more sceptic - he is ranting, and a bit sharper - but it is in no way out of order or insulting - anyway - here goes Pat Condell on **Transcendence

I am actually surprised, that this "term" did not yet show up namely..
Fits somehow, doesn´t it?
smile.gif

Originally Posted by StephL

No offence meant to neither of you - but I just do not grasp, what in that post does make the difference to the other posts in here on the topic ?

Aye... there's the rub.

Our estimation of the intellectual capacity of others is largely a function of how much they think like us.

Because Sageous and I have a somewhat similar world view on these topics, he knows that I'm a pretty smart kid and appreciates what I have to say.

Because you and I live in entirely different worlds when it comes to such things, you know that I'm a sophomoric sort, which I guess I could take as a compliment since I'm a freshman.

Later,
N.

Originally Posted by StephL

Again - in actuality - it is a post directed towards you, Sageous, because I do not understand, what you find to be an excellent point in this post.
No offence meant to neither of you - but I just do not grasp, what in that post does make the difference to the other posts in here on the topic ?

You may have read too much into my humble observation, Steph. Okay, perhaps not so humble, given that I stuck that judgmental "period" at the end.

I was not saying that Nailler answered the question posed by this thread's OP, or my secondary question, or any question at all, when he said:

Originally Posted by Nailler:
I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously.One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

No. Rather, what I noticed in his quote was that he covered the real problem here: that there may be more to the world, and our experience of it, than just what science has to offer, yet we all exist in a physical world defined by science in spite of that more, and science's current ignorance of that more. Additionally, one person can hold both descriptors of this world -- the empirical and the spiritual -- in her heart without conflict.

Indeed, I have a feeling that we all harbor a sense of that more in our hearts, no matter how starkly we might defend, and frankly believe in, the "provable" physical world and the scientific process that serves to define it. LD'ers, by the very nature of their explorations, probably maintain a steadier balance between these two coexistent yet conflicting worlds than most, I would bet.

In other words, as humans we're able to imagine the magic, hope for the transcendental (more on that in a sec), and believe that our experiences are different from the world as defined by science, all while also being confident in the reality of the physical world (and yes, even those who deny the existence of the physical world need only run headlong into a brick wall for a reminder of its solidity).

This dichotomy exists in all of us...it's what makes us the curious, imaginative creatures we are, and also what spurs battles like the one engaged on this thread. Indeed, I sometimes think that the staunchest defenders of either side tend to be the ones with the most innate confidence that the other side is "right."

In even more other words, from a deeply human perspective, both sides are right. The physical world exists, the scientific process defines it as best it can; the spiritual world exists, and religions, philosophers, and many an imaginative individual struggle to define it as best they can (and this is the case even if the spiritual world exists only in our heads, because that makes it no less real in our experience).

So anyway, what I acknowledged to Nailler was that he had, well, nailed it (sorry!) in what he said. He hadn't defined where dreams are formed, or who is right or wrong -- just that as sentient creatures we truly do live in two often conflicting worlds all the time. So there is and argument to be made that, in our experience, dreams can indeed be the product of both those worlds. I meant no more than that, and, hopefully obviously at this point, was taking no sides in the matter of the "true" source of dreams.

Now a note about transcendental experience. I watched that video you provided, Steph, and generally agree with the speaker: transcendence is a word and an experience often abused by religious and spiritual "authorities," and for just the reasons he states. But that does not negate the transcendental experience -- it only suggests that perhaps, because something spiritually transcendental is by definition impossible to describe, nothing should (or literally can) be described as transcendental. That doesn't mean we don't have transcendental experiences. We -- all of us -- could be having them all the time, perhaps every time we dream. The trouble is, since there is no comparative metaphor in human experience from which to draw to describe a transcendent experience, we cannot do so at all... so we either forget what happened, or else remember something "great" happened and either attach incorrect metaphors (like religious mythology), or else say something like, "You'll never understand; you had to be there." Neither explanation is any good, but it is all a person describing a "remembered" transcendental experience can say ... which is why he would do best to keep said experience to himself. Oh and yes, my asking this question was indeed begging a transcendental answer, which I suppose is why it will not be answered "correctly" here :

Originally Posted by Sageous:
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?

tl;dr: I was simply noting that Nailler's post pointed out that we've all got the scientific and spiritual swirling constantly in our worlds, and that dreaming could certainly, perhaps must certainly, be sourced in both worlds. No more; no less.

Yes, dreaming is product of your thumb. When you cut the thumb off, you won't be able to dream.

And since your brain seems to be smaller than your thumb Nfri. Then this idea seems to make a lot of sense.

By this simple ironic hypothesis I wanted to point out how absurd it is to ask yourself these questions. I do not know why are you offensive?

Sageous I got to say, god summarising indeed!

I dont know what everybody's impression of my thoughts is, or if anyone care either. But anyway, It might be a good time for me to summarising my tought's a bit now after Sageous perfectly openminded summarising.

My part in this thread has been at a large exctent trying to keep the openmindness to remain open. And I refer to be as openminded myself as I possibly can. That is why many questions ends up in a maybe for me, even if there is an sientific statement (wich I not dissagree with either). So the difference between science and spirituality is that sience is the truth as we now know it, that's what I think we all should refer to in the first hand when some strange occurens happens. But there is many strange things happening in the world, where things get kind of unexplainable(depending on ones own debunking). And there is were the spiruality takes it place. At least this is the case for my own believes as it looks like today.

Far from all strange events needs to be some paranormal explanation. For example: If there is noises from the attic when your home alone. There is a good possibility that there is rats who running around there and makes small and sometimes heavy things fall if those things havn't been placed steady. And there is of course many many more examples like this.

But I would like some thought's on this story that Im going to explain here, if there could be some good possibilities to a natural cause for it. This was a case with a mother and her teenage daughter who had some crazy things going on in their house. So they wanted to get rid of this "ghost" or what you like to call it. Things that they had experienced in the house was that they had seen a shadow figure of a man. They had heard a mans voice talking. And the most wierd experience they [B]both saw at the same time[/U]. When they where in the livingroom, and the remotecontroll to the tv goes up in the air and stops in the air and starts spining at it's spot for a couple of seconds, before it shots down under the sofa in a high speed. This is things that at least I dont get any good answer to. And that's what make me curious about if there might be something like a spirit or if the world we live in works in a way that we dont think it does.

For everyone who might like to have your self a mindfuck or just some good food for tought(It sure is "al dente"). Here is some very interesting view from the always interesting, Alan Watts. Alan Watts Am I Free Or Just A Puppet - YouTube enjoy!

Originally Posted by Nailler

Aye... there's the rub.

Our estimation of the intellectual capacity of others is largely a function of how much they think like us.

Because Sageous and I have a somewhat similar world view on these topics, he knows that I'm a pretty smart kid and appreciates what I have to say.

Because you and I live in entirely different worlds when it comes to such things, you know that I'm a sophomoric sort, which I guess I could take as a compliment since I'm a freshman.

Later,
N.

First of all - I had to check what sophomoric* means:

having or showing a lack of emotional maturity : foolish and immature

No - something like this I did have in mind, when answering to the conundrum of human suffering towards astralboy, but I do not see you so. As I say below - I just couldn´t fathom, where Sageous had seen a new and important point being made.
Something you did not claim in the first place, by the way.
It is a good point with your observation, how much the judgement of other people´s actions - whichever - is based in how we like them.
Or also on "which side" they argue.
I do not need to say this - and you might not believe it - but I do like you, what ever that means in such an environment

Actually - as I did before - I would have left your post alone, if it had not been for Sageous´ "period".
So - sorry in a way!
smile.gif

*but I did get the joke with freshman, nice one..

Originally Posted by Sageous

You may have read too much into my humble observation, Steph. Okay, perhaps not so humble, given that I stuck that judgmental "period" at the end.

I was not saying that Nailler answered the question posed by this thread's OP, or my secondary question, or any question at all, when he said:

No. Rather, what I noticed in his quote was that he covered the real problem here: that there may be more to the world, and our experience of it, than just what science has to offer, yet we all exist in a physical world defined by science in spite of that more, and science's current ignorance of that more. Additionally, one person can hold both descriptors of this world -- the empirical and the spiritual -- in her heart without conflict.

Indeed, I have a feeling that we all harbor a sense of that more in our hearts, no matter how starkly we might defend, and frankly believe in, the "provable" physical world and the scientific process that serves to define it. LD'ers, by the very nature of their explorations, probably maintain a steadier balance between these two coexistent yet conflicting worlds than most, I would bet.

In other words, as humans we're able to imagine the magic, hope for the transcendental (more on that in a sec), and believe that our experiences are different from the world as defined by science, all while also being confident in the reality of the physical world (and yes, even those who deny the existence of the physical world need only run headlong into a brick wall for a reminder of its solidity).

This dichotomy exists in all of us...it's what makes us the curious, imaginative creatures we are, and also what spurs battles like the one engaged on this thread. Indeed, I sometimes think that the staunchest defenders of either side tend to be the ones with the most innate confidence that the other side is "right."

In even more other words, from a deeply human perspective, both sides are right. The physical world exists, the scientific process defines it as best it can; the spiritual world exists, and religions, philosophers, and many an imaginative individual struggle to define it as best they can (and this is the case even if the spiritual world exists only in our heads, because that makes it no less real in our experience).

So anyway, what I acknowledged to Nailler was that he had, well, nailed it (sorry!) in what he said. He hadn't defined where dreams are formed, or who is right or wrong -- just that as sentient creatures we truly do live in two often conflicting worlds all the time. So there is and argument to be made that, in our experience, dreams can indeed be the product of both those worlds. I meant no more than that, and, hopefully obviously at this point, was taking no sides in the matter of the "true" source of dreams.

Hehe - your humble "period" - yepp, that´s what I stumbled over! wink.gif

Because I felt - up to then, you had always left it open, if there is a spiritual world or not.
With this - it seemed, somehow your questions would have found an answer with Nailler´s post.
A good one, in some ways - but just I could not fathom, what it was that had seemingly swayed you.

So I would rather see it now, as "you ring true to each other" in this way of experiencing the dichotomy?
You are correct of course - you did not say hurrah - we have the answers now in this post.
smile.gif

Originally Posted by Sageous

Now a note about transcendental experience. I watched that video you provided, Steph, and generally agree with the speaker: transcendence is a word and an experience often abused by religious and spiritual "authorities," and for just the reasons he states. But that does not negate the transcendental experience -- it only suggests that perhaps, because something spiritually transcendental is by definition impossible to describe, nothing should (or literally can) be described as transcendental. That doesn't mean we don't have transcendental experiences. We -- all of us -- could be having them all the time, perhaps every time we dream. The trouble is, since there is no comparative metaphor in human experience from which to draw to describe a transcendent experience, we cannot do so at all... so we either forget what happened, or else remember something "great" happened and either attach incorrect metaphors (like religious mythology), or else say something like, "You'll never understand; you had to be there." Neither explanation is any good, but it is all a person describing a "remembered" transcendental experience can say ... which is why he would do best to keep said experience to himself. Oh and yes, my asking this question was indeed begging a transcendental answer, which I suppose is why it will not be answered "correctly" here :

As to "Transcendence" this was actually a rebuke to something, which - to my astonishment - did not even take place in this argumentation of ours here - this "place-holdering" with this term.
We agree on that account, as to that it does not create meaning from thin air, and that I find good.

Originally Posted by Sageous

tl;dr: I was simply noting that Nailler's post pointed out that we've all got the scientific and spiritual swirling constantly in our worlds, and that dreaming could certainly, perhaps must certainly, be sourced in both worlds. No more; no less.

But I personally do not feel as if it has been pointed out to me, that the scientific and the spiritual are both constantly swirling in my world.
I do not feel anything substantially new to this discussion was pointed out to me there.

And towards the question of where dreams come from - my answer is:
There is no compelling evidence, that dreams come from anywhere else than the brain.
What you seem to do in this last paragraph is - you first pose this world as existent.
Then you say - if it is there in the first place, then dreams could certainly, or maybe must certainly come (also) from it.
Yepp - if it was there - then I would also bring it together with the very phenomena it has been thought up for.
But - there is your burning question once more: where is it??

Also - the post you quoted brought up several aspects, where it really interests me, what you think in terms of:

What is the mind?
What is the spirit?
What are the differences between them as to where they reside, how they work, what they do for your functional "whole person"?
How do they exchange information?
Where does the brain come in?

Lets go with the morning dew on the flower - first off the eyes, right?
How then goes it on further?
Lets say till you exclaim - "Oh how beautiful!"

How does the dualistic system do it´s work here?

By this simple ironic hypothesis I wanted to point out how absurd it is to ask yourself these questions. I do not know why are you offensive?

Nfri I know that you was just trolling, but who says I was mad?? I thought that your point was quite funny^^ So i tried to be funny aswell. No need for me to being offensive here m8

I think we may be losing something in translation, Steph, but I'll try again:

Hehe - your humble "period" - yepp, that´s what I stumbled over!

No, no.. I put in the word "period" after I said Nailler was making an excellent point; by doing so I implied that from my point of view no more need be said. Including that word was a judgmental thing to do; I was not having a judgmental period (at least not then). But I guess none of that matters at all at this point, so time to move on.

Some other thoughts:

Originally Posted by StephL

Because I felt - up to then, you had always left it open, if there is a spiritual world or not. With this - it seemed, somehow your questions would have found an answer with Nailler´s post.
A good one, in some ways - but just I could not fathom, what it was that had seemingly swayed you.

I still leave it open that there is a spiritual world, and nothing in Nailler's post "swayed" me about anything. Rather, he was indicating something I was already noticing, based on thoughts I've held for a very long time. Though I'm not interested in repeating all the stuff in my last post, I must note again that I was not saying that there is a tangibly existent spiritual world (now there's an oxymoron!). That more I kept repeating up there was a sense, a feeling, deeply embedded in our psyches, based firmly on our imaginations, our fear of death, our anecdotal experiences, and an archetypical insertion of a sense of or need formore into the very fabric of our beings for uncounted generations. That more might not exist; it may never have existed, and may never exist; but the sense of it is practically universal. That's what I was saying, and not that there is a literal spiritual world. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

But I personally do not feel as if it has been pointed out to me, that the scientific and the spiritual are both constantly swirling in my world. I do not feel anything substantially new to this discussion was pointed out to me there.

I was speaking in generalities, of course, and don't dare suggest that I know what is in your specific head. There are exceptions to every rule, and you certainly might not have any sense of that more, that spirituality, in your head. However, after reading so many of your posts and knowing your interest in something as unplugged from scientific reality as dreaming and lucid dreaming, I would bet that you've got more spiritual stuff swirling around in you than you might currently think. That is not a bad thing, and doesn't imply things like "crazy" or "naive" at all, either ... it just says that you too might want there to be more. Again, I could be wrong, but I felt it worth taking a moment to pay you the compliment.

And towards the question of where dreams come from - my answer is:
There is no compelling evidence, that dreams come from anywhere else than the brain.

Okay, and I agree. I think I already had done that, several times, but I'll do it again: In my opinion, dreams -- and all the other stuff that define and sustain our personalities, consciousness, and souls, for that matter -- are indeed processed in and by the brain. However, in my opinion, that process is only the beginning, and it is worth considering that perhaps the stuff of our thoughts has a longer shelf-life and greater reach than just the distance of a few crossed synapses. I think I've been fairly consistent with this thought, and not just here. That also is why I asked that question about from where, then, do dreams come.

What you seem to do in this last paragraph is - you first pose this world as existent.

No, I do not. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstood that; I am often too nuanced for my own good sometimes!

Then you say - if it is there in the first place, then dreams could certainly, or maybe must certainly come (also) from it.
Yepp - if it was there - then I would also bring it together with the very phenomena it has been thought up for.
But - there is your burning question once more: where is it??

Again, the sense a spiritual world (of that more) is there, and not the spiritual world itself. There is an enormous difference. Where is it, that spiritual world? It is in your head, in your thoughts, in your dreams. It may exist elsewhere as well, in some form or another, but that is both not known and, from my perspective, unimportant relative to what I was trying to say.

Also, and I promise I'll say it for the last time, that "swirling about" of which I spoke was one of your own perceptions, your own imaginings, and your own hopes and dreams ("your," of course, being anyone's, and not specifically you). I wasn't talking about some physical spiritual essence swirling physically in your mind, just as I wasn't talking about some physical scientific essence swirling about. I was also using the perspective of consciousness, and not the nuts-and-bolts of firing neurons and other organic brain activity. You probably already knew this, but I figured it would not hurt to make the distinction clear.

Also - the post you quoted brought up several aspects, where it really interests me, what you think in terms of:

What is the mind?
What is the spirit?
What are the differences between them as to where they reside, how they work, what they do for your functional "whole person"?
How do they exchange information?
Where does the brain come in?

I'm going to dodge all these questions, considering that each would rate an entire book (or three) to answer, and a few words on a web post will only serve to muddle, not confirm, define, or enlighten. Were you just being rhetorical?

That said, here are some extremely brief direct responses to your questions, based on things I've already said here and elsewhere:

* The mind is the accumulation of our thoughts, memories, and sentient activities (all our "I think, therefore I am" moments). It is essentially the mechanism of our selves, and it is certainly (in my opinion) originally sourced in brain activity -- but it might not be limited to brain activity; it may even have a potential to transcend that activity (oh, crap, there's that word -- please trust that I'm not just casually throwing it out there!

* The spirit is the result of all that accumulation, the non-physical essence of the personalities that we have spent our lifetimes assembling. It is the framework of our identity, and personality. In a sense, spirit is the "sum of the parts" of brain activity, memory, consciousness, dreams. There may be more to spirit, perhaps something truly physical (like that thought energy I think I posited about earlier). Yes, there may be, and I for one hope there is (and work every day towards discovering there is), but for now it exists only as the stuff of our consciousness. However, as that stuff, it must be a participant in the production of dreams -- which is why I said that spirit ought to be included in the formula for dream production.

* How do they exchange information? Dreams themselves may be the answer to that question, but it is likely far more complicated in process -- though probably quite simple in definition:

They are not "exchanging" information at all! Your personality, the "You" in all this, encompasses everything that is going on in you, be it mind brain activity, dreams, spiritual meanderings, whatever. Communication in essence does not exist, because all parts are always in contact with all the other parts. This includes communications between the unconscious and conscious minds as well, though I do lapse occasionally into separating them into two separate places (I shouldn't do that, but 50 years of Western input have pretty much conditioned me to doing so).

* Finally, the brain comes in as the progenitor to it all, the center for our entire lives of perception, cognition, memory, personality, and interaction with reality. What happens after our lives end, or after we discover and harness that currently fantasized thought energy, is anyone's guess, but suffice it to say that the brain is the keystone to our existence for as long as we are alive.

Again, entire books can be written in answer to each of these questions, so be assured that all the answers are profoundly incomplete and extremely arguable, for lack of many, many pages of clarifications.

How does the dualistic system do it´s work here?

I was going to simply delete this question and hope it got forgotten, but what the hell? I'm here. I think the dualistic system, as much as there is one, is an invention of convenience that helps us make sense of reality. I don't think it has to do anything here, because dreams are literally a non-dualistic event (everything in a dream is "You," there is no outside influence, no need for an observer/observed interchange). Indeed, dualism tends to damage dreaming, both because it tends to apply (often very incorrect) meanings or explanations to what happened long after the dream occurred, and also because the potentials of lucid dreams are diminished when we observe them during the dream with a dualistic attitude.

And, again, books can and have been written about dualism, so this answer is certainly not nearly enough.

Okay, I'm out of time, Steph -- I had honestly hoped that my one-line comment to Nailler said it all -- apparently not!

I certainly hope I was more clear this time...

Originally Posted by StephL

Lets go with the morning dew on the flower - first off the eyes, right?
How then goes it on further?Lets say till you exclaim - "Oh how beautiful!"

“If you want to converse with me, first define your terms.” Somebody famous said that, but I forgot who. So...

Consider the spirit to be the person himself... the personality... a source of creation... the "I."

The body is... well the body... meat, bones, nerves, organs chemical/electrical activity etc.

The mind is the interface between the spirit and the body. The mind is not the brain, but is a bridge between the brain and the spirit.

Seeing the beauty of the flower...

A light pattern corresponding to the flower impinges on the back of the retina. This causes an electrical pattern in part of the brain. That pattern is not evidence that the brain sees or is aware of anything. It's simply an electrical pattern. On a stimulus response basis, the brain may trigger the release of chemicals that effect mood or behavior, but that is not evidence of cognizance or awareness. For example, pattern corresponding to a rattlesnake="fight or flight" reflex.

The spirit or "I" becomes aware of that pattern via the mind. At the same time it becomes aware of the patterns generated by the other senses. This is the only point in the process where anything or anyone is truly aware. The spirit assigns form to the pattern by creating an image in the mind. The mind assigns meaning to the image... it's a flower... and further assigns qualities to it. It's red, it's beautiful, etc., and perhaps draws conclusions... "It must be spring" "flowers are a good thing" or whatever.

The meaning and qualities assigned to the pattern vary depending upon the personality and mood of the "I." This is why one person might see the flower as beautiful, while another might see the same flower as humdrum, or not recognise any beauty in it at all. It's also why one might see something insightful in a message board post, whilst another may not.

This is not "Niall's Original Unified Theory of Mind, Body, and Soul." In one form or another this was at one time the common view of human existence. As mankind made enormous strides in the physical sciences, it got a swelled head and lost sight of the mind and soul. In fact the original definition of psychology was the study of the soul... which included it's interactions with the mind and body. In essence, mankind lost it's mind and soul and it became all about chemicals. Curiously, in present time science is slowly catching up with itself as studies discredit the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness. But that's a topic for another day.

Now to address the original question about where dreams come from...
Dreams are the body's way (via the mind) of keeping the spirit occupied while it completes its restorative sleep process.

In essence the body, via the mind, sets up a sort of playground of past images, perceptions, and sensations which play out through the same spirit-mind-body communication channels as real life. That's why the brain activity during dreams is similar to the brain activity in waking life.

In lucid dreaming, for its own amusement, the spirit triggers the mind to create "new" perceptions which are usually the recombining of previous perceptions, but could be entirely new and original.

So dreams are triggered by the spirit, but consist of past perceptions rekindled in the mind/body interface. The brain produces nothing on its own and is aware of nothing other than on a stimulus response basis.

This is my own theory... "Niall's Uniform Theory of Brainless Dreams."

Later,
N.

Let me try to answer this question in the most basic manner. Our brain is the basis of everything we do, choose to do, think, visualize, even every movement you make requires your brain to be working. So what other part of the body could possibly hold the capability to dream? Exactly. Nothing else. Just your brain.
Besides, without our brain we wouldn't even be capable of movement, thought, or use of the five senses. No other part of the body is capable of controlling all of those factors.

Originally Posted by Tradl3s

Our brain is the basis of everything we do...

I think the Scarecrow in THE WIZARD OF OZ got it right...

Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

N.