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

A cool video

I do have some points, where I feel a bit of a mood to argue - but later, maybe.

But - for whoever likes the above video or that Sagan video - it is from this book:

'Flatland' by Edwin A. Abbott

That above is a free version of the book on Gutenberg project - unfortunately only the text version without pictures - but anyway.
There you have the original - and it is containing what the videos have on offer and lots more..
Enjoy.

I feel it would be nice to have a review over modern philosophical thinking in here - but - I just go ahead and throw my post out - half-baked as it is.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

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.

Thank you once more - and yeah - I will try to not judge one book, I haven´t read, by another one I haven´t read either - it´s on my list, her "The Field".

Like I wrote above - I do not believe that "we" - our consciousness, our essence leaves the body intact in death.
But I do believe, that said essence could maybe be transferred onto another medium.
Be it something artificial - like living on in a virtual reality or into something maybe bio-engineered.
At least in theory.
Or we could manage to transcend out planet and go live out there under other stars with our intact bodies - tuned for immortality.
Which our earth could not take on, if it were to come without that.

So what do I think I am talking about?
Surely not electricity - if you use a device with electricity - say - your computer - when you shut it down - the electricity is not leaving it in any way which takes with it information or content. It just ceases to flow about.
Same with the brain.

What is left? Structure of the substrate and information.

The structure needed to be substituted if continuity should commence - I am fully materialistic there - I think, such a substrate is needed.
But the possibilities as to what could work for this are probably vastly bigger than just – a computer-simulation.
This new structure would need "your" pattern - it needed to somehow lead the flow of information about it just like you brain did.
Your brain, which you have pruned and built and repaired and whatnot in your individual way - in an interplay of your genetics and what you have experienced up to that point.
Maybe this is not possible.
Maybe it is - but would you still be you or just somebody else starting out, where you left?

Maybe "we" humans living today are simply shut off from such surviving of death - but maybe not our children and theirs?
Maybe they could be given a sort of implant..

One million “maybes” - that´s all I have - but I really think, we ourselves have to realize these wonders ourselves.
And hopefully before we manage to wipe ourselves out - planet and all.

My biggest dream for real life?
First Contact, “maybe”?

Originally Posted by astralboy

@Nailler
Wow that's cool... I know his quote but not all that you said. I will make my resarch about him :p
When you say "Descartes asserted that all his philosophic ideas and theories came to him in dreams or just before waking up." It reminds me a quote from Nikola Tesla : "My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.”
There is so much "big minds" who have the same style of quotes.

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

Not really... lol

Oh well.
Does that mean the two of you Astralboy and Nailler - have done extensive reading in the subject area of philosophy and neuroscience of post-Descartes-thinkers and come to judge these irrelevant?
Seriously?
Or have you got your believe-systems pre-formed, and your hearts sprang with joy that there is actually a man – very honored by almost everybody incl. myself for his undoubted philosophical and mathematical achievements - a man who simplifies it just as you do it?
But - he was born in 1596 - he is sometimes referred to as the father of rationalism - I do very strongly believe he would have come up with substantially different insights on duality/non-duality if he had lived today.
Very luckily indeed modern philosophy and neuroscience are not stuck at Descartes level.
He did well and congratulation – but he is not by far the end of reasoning - rather he opened a door.

Originally Posted by astralboy

One day what I say here, and what so many people said before me, will be SCIENCE.
But I'm afraid because science is somehow dependant of money and people who have it. Some people don't want free energy, some people don't want you to know that you have the power for your life. They want consumers, victims... Not free minds. So there is truths that are hidden. But when you experience yourself your real Self there is nothing that can be hidden to you. I, myself don't gain money when I say all this to people. But they gain money when they say that you need this or that... That you are a poor creature who needs petrol, drugs. Think about the economy the day free energy will be showed to people, think about the day when the placebo effect will be really showed and explained to people. Ask yourself why there is only negative informations on the Tv. The day the science will show what we are : the economy, drugstore business, energy buisiness will FALL. Please people think about this... think beyond your system. Ask yourself why it is better for them to tell you that you are meaningless meat, in an meaningless universe with no other purpose than consume and give them money.

Sorry Now I'm gone far beyond my first question lol.

Oh mei.
There was me feeling a certain closeness of concepts not long ago - and you got to throw in conspiracy theories..
What do you mean - secrets - your “secrets” are being pondered since - well - definitively before Descartes…
You do as if these were revelations - and somebody had them under closure not to lose money.
Who?
What is your conspiracy-theory there?
Just because nobody was ever able to prove these “truths” - your explanation goes - somebody must be suppressing these ..

It does not even anger me any more, to hear such - I feel a sense of boredom these days, when this sort of easy-out is put forth..

StephL you make me smile lol
I think I have nothing more to say to you. If you are convinced and happy with your beliefs good for you.
Have a nice day.

You too, Astralboy!

But Im not done here yet! and I think that all these questions will end up in alot of maybe's in the end. StephL, when you said

So what do I think I am talking about?
Surely not electricity - if you use a device with electricity - say - your computer - when you shut it down - the electricity is not leaving it in any way which takes with it information or content. It just ceases to flow about

I totally understand the point of this, but there is one thing we got to take in consideration to here before we close this case about a free spirit without body. And that is, that we now-a-days send all kind of information around the world, and of course do we need some technology to do so to. But the tricky part in my opinion is that all this information is flying around on it's own before reaching it's final destination, and it's always picked up in the right order it was made out to be. So if large pieces of information can fly thru space without being dissolved. Why shouldn't all the information from our brain's be able to do the same?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

But Im not done here yet! and I think that all these questions will end up in alot of maybe's in the end. StephL, when you said I totally understand the point of this, but there is one thing we got to take in consideration to here before we close this case about a free spirit without body. And that is, that we now-a-days send all kind of information around the world, and of course do we need some technology to do so to. But the tricky part in my opinion is that all this information is flying around on it's own before reaching it's final destination, and it's always picked up in the right order it was made out to be. So if large pieces of information can fly thru space without being dissolved. Why shouldn't all the information from our brain's be able to do the same?

Keep in mind, though, that all that information is very carefully maintained. It may seem to be just flying around on its own, but pretty much all usable transmitted information is moved from a definite transmitter to a definite receiver, and it is given very specific "flying" instructions to make this happen. Also, there is a source for this information; it was not spontaneously generated.

Nailler:

I might be a bit too late to respond here, and StephL seems to have summed up much of it already, but I hope you don't mind my quick response:

Originally Posted by Nailler

Quote 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.

What if one does not subscribe to Descartes' theory of mind/body dualism? Though Descartes' credentials are sound, I think I forgot to renew my subscription to a 400-year-old seminal philosophy that has been revised, refuted, ignored, and trumped by new theories repeatedly over the centuries -- not to mention fully ignored by eastern philosophy, which also has something to say about this stuff. So for me the the first question may still be valid and quite answerable. That answer might not be correct, sure, but at least it would fire the imagination, and maybe leave one to pause and explain their beliefs about where dreams -- and mind -- come from (which I think Astralboy did do, BTW, so even he felt the question held an answer).

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.

Okay. So Descartes answered the question with a non-answer -- does that mean you choose to do the same? If your spirit/mind is not located in space-time, what, then, defines it? How does it define itself? For that matter, if a being exists outside of space-time -- pretty much making it an eternal being by definition, why would it need to impinge on the physical world at all, much less spend four-score and seven in the extreme and often quite messy confines of an organic box? That seems very counter-intuitive to me, but there must be a reason, right? Did Descartes have one?

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

Gosh, I hope so! I'd hate to think that all things intellectual froze solid with Descartes! I think folks like Liebniz, Newton, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Darwin, W. James, Einstein, Russel, Jung, and many, many more would also beg to differ: Yes, Descartes was significant, and literally opened the door to modern philosophy, but our growth did not end with him.

Also, for what it's worth, wasn't Cogito Ergo Sum more about perspective and identity than it was about anything truly physical? Was Descartes really saying that his brain and body are creations of his mind, and not that, yes his body exists, but it is his consciousness within it is what does the defining of his reality? I'm not so sure.

Finally, if something comes to you in a dream, why does that presuppose that the dream must have been manufactured outside of the brain? There seems a piece missing there.

Please be assured, Nailler (and Astralboy), I'm not being facetious here, or trying to foist materialistic values upon this thread (I have very few of those to foist, anyway), nor am I attempting to curve the conversation back to a discussion of science. I really am curious about your ideas on this -- especially because if dreams do come from outside the brain, and you guys are correct!

I get your point Sageous, and I think it's a good aspect that you take in consideration here. But the thing that I cant let go of, even if all this information is maintained and received in a very specific and constructed way. The thing is that the information really do survive on it's own during it's trip. And during the trip, the information got to be totally none materialistic. One question that pops in my mind after this is: Do a radiofrequency ever dissolve? I dont expect to get any right answers to any of this, but it's these questions that brings me in to some theories that makes me more curious about how life might work besides our ordinary knowns.

^^ Another thing you might consider: radio waves, and electromagnetism in general, are very much part of the material world. You might not be able to see or touch it, but the electricity passing through space does exist physically, in the form of moving electrons or photons. So the information really never loses its materialistic value, I think.

Also, I believe that radio waves last a very long time, if nothing stops them. I won't say forever, though, because that's a very long time, and entropy likely kicks in eventually.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

But Im not yet done here yet! and I think that all these questions will end up in alot of maybe's in the end.

StephL, when you said I totally understand the point of this, but there is one thing we got to take in consideration to here before we close this case about a free spirit without body.

Oh - this is nice that you are not done here yet!
I really enjoy to exchange thoughts - fresh from the brain - so to speak - around and about the nature of consciousness.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

And that is, that we now-a-days send all kind of information around the world, and of course do we need some technology to do so to.

Yes we do.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

But the tricky part in my opinion is that all this information is flying around on it's own before reaching it's final destination, and it's always picked up in the right order it was made out to be.

Not really.
It is not flying about on it´s own - it always needs a medium.
Like soundwaves - the movement of the air, which is - for example produced by the vocal chords of yours vibrating and putting the air into oscillation.

These reach your eardrum, and it starts to swing as a membrane with this air, which - for the short time being - transports the waves forth from molecule to molecule.

There are bones as amplifiers and you get some gel-like fluid in your cochlea transporting the frequency and pressure information purely physically onto your hearing nerve´s receptors - and then the information is given onwards and integrated in your central nervous system.

There is never any doubt as to what the information "does" or "where it is" while it is transferred.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

So if large pieces of information can fly thru space without being dissolved.

Information gets lost all the time.
And we humans die and that was it. Game over.
Medium not functioning any more - information gets progressively lost.
Initially - you can take organs for transplantation, and the system holds together and functions and becomes an - often difficult - but integrated part of that receiver-person´s body.
The more disintegration - the less information.

Energy does not get lost - it transforms - like our dead brains can be used for the worm´s needs.




So - the questions are:
Does our consciousness leave the body after death to be transferred somewhere else non-physical in the classical dualistic world-view?

I can not bring myself to believe such a thing.
And I definitively do not want to believe something I deem irrational.

It´s not "I Want To Believe" it´s "I Want To Learn, Experience And Know!" for me.
There is simply no evidence at all for "The Soul" - not even a viable hypothesis on background..

From human psychology´s viewpoint - religion is is a natural reaction to the reality and the realization of there being Death.
To reflect on your finiteness too deeply, will shut you out from procreation - game over.
But maybe our minds are evolving in such a way that we finally throw away all these crutches and seriously free ourselves.

And:
Can there be a transfer of consciousness from medium to medium, which subjectively "feels" to the subject, as if continuity was held up?

You could extremely well argue about there never having been any continuity in the first place.
From Science and - if I understood my husband there correctly - also from Buddhism´s side of affairs.
So - the question is pointless - but then - it is about the very point of view at the same time.

If such a thing as consciousness-transfer would be possible and done one day - then we could ask the transferred person how she feels about it.
Is she a new creature - can she know?

I do by the way not oppose to putting data from introspection into scientific study - like some do.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Why shouldn't all the information from our brain's be able to do the same?

I can only say - I think this is, because a substrate - a material substrate is generally needed for a consciousness to reside in.
At least somewhere - like a body on life-support 24/h to put it more of into a "horror scenario".

I believe consciousness is an epiphenomenon of biological material life.
A physical medium must exist in our universe - space-time, dimensions and all, if we were to be conscious in this physical universe.

Why on beautiful earth not accept the story, all our scientific evidence and logical thinking leads us to, the things we do know already??
Physics, biology, evolution - the fossil record, chemistry, cosmology - it is not they were all into their hairs and not agreeing.

There takes place the emergence of biologic life on earth, or somewhere else in the universe, and we get "infected" - no difference as to the emergence aspect..
Life comes from the depths of our oceans - maybe it emerged around the hot springs..

And conditions were vastly changing and always challenging over millions of years.
So Evolution is what is happening over time.

And progress in generations includes death - at least here and now and without our interference it does.


And one more thought:
If I were the beautiful physical universe, "we" have the opportunity in to live in - anthropomorphically speaking - I maybe would be insulted by humans not finding it wonderful enough for them.
For their little minds..


Fuuh - one big thing on my list now is re-reading very many books.
To see, if I believe to remember correctly - and sort my thoughts out.
Could be fun.
Sounds extremely strenuous though as well.
Fuuuuh ..

Sageous that was an really interesting answer I got to say! Im jumping from one thing to another, but I do have a big interest in if there might be life after death, so Ill always try my theories out as good as possible. And when you mentioned electromagnetism, that's exactly what these paranormal-Investigators been able to measure. So what I know so far, is that ones spirit should consist of electromagnetic-energy. I dont really have a question here, but I think it's nice to hear your tought's about things, if you got some about this maybe.

StephL, you seem to have a lot of questions, and so do I actually. And I get even more questions myself, before I could come up with answers about what life really is about. I will not be able to answer them all, but I pick one here that I consider one of the mere important according to me.

Why on beautiful earth not accept the story, all our scientific evidence and logical thinking leads us to, the things we do know already??
Physics, biology, evolution - the fossil record, chemistry, cosmology - it is not they were all into their hairs and not agreeing.

I think that this is a good example why you just dont seems to fully get it when it comes to different believes. I would consider myself exactly as logical as you. But what differs us, is that Im seeking an answear to IF there might be a life after death. And my goal is not to fool myself here, I got to take every question I may ask myself equaly seriously even if it doesn't seems to fit in with what the scientists says. These kind of questions about life after death etc, seems to many people, as ridiculous. This is not a religious belief Im developing here, it's made up of pure logic. I cant claim that Im right about what I believe, but after some years digging in these questions, I do think Im on the right way. and I no longer feel that I have to convince everyone either. And now back to you StephL, these toughts Im outing here is really not easy to digest if you come frome a pretty hardcore belief in what the scientists says, only. I dont dissagree in what science has come up with, when it comes to how the earth works. But what science do is not a matter of if this life might have, a destiny or a meaning with. Science do measure things and take a really close look into stuff. So if you search for an answer if all life got a meaning, then you need to take in everything that's ever exist and occure in this world and try to come to a conclusion WHY everything is happening and not WHAT make things happen mechanically. And science is all about what makes things happen mechanically.

StephL, I get the feeling that you really try to debunk all this things, and that's a really good thing to go for. But with these kind of questions, there might always be a MAYBE in there when you think you got it. And it's when that maybe appears that you got to stay fair in your conclusions. And the even trickier thing with these questions, is that you often have to make your own research to really get the sense if there is any true value behind it. And if you TRULEY want to make it closer to some kind of answer, you got to remain fair to your self in your conclusions, even if you got a belief in any side of the coint.

So my question to you is: Do you really have the fair view in everything you believe? or do you might want to believe in one thing to much to let it go? You dont really have to answer me this if you dont feel lit to be necessary. But you might ask your self this, and then why your not fair in your belief if that might be the case.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Nailler:

What if one does not subscribe to Descartes' theory of mind/body dualism?

Then I would ask what theory of awareness and personal identity does one subscribe to? Are we basically a piece of meat called a brain that is somehow self-aware? Are we some form of electrical activity bopping along through synapses in the brain? Or are we spirits or souls? What? And are these questions beyond the scope of neuroscience.

I guess my point is that there has to be somebody home... somebody there who is aware of being aware. Perhaps it's a shortcoming on my part that I can't conceive of a piece of meat or electrical patterns being self-aware. To press the point, if that is the case, who is it being aware of that self-awareness? But now I'm even confusing myself.

As for a reason that an immortal soul might choose to impinge on the physical universe and run a human body around... maybe for a game... something to do? It seems to me that the conventional ideas of heaven, nirvana, cosmic consciousnesses etc. would be incredibly boring after a day or two.

Thanks for the food for thought, Sageous. I'm going to have to think over the Q; Where do dreams come from? I don't see how they can come from a brain, but on the other hand, if they come from the spirit it must be on a via of some kind... like having a sock puppet and pretending we're not doing it.

Kind of neat to have a place to discuss such stuff with others who seem to share my interests. I don't have any friends like that in real life.

N.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL, you seem to have a lot of questions, and so do I actually. And I get even more questions myself, before I could come up with answers about what life really is about. I will not be able to answer them all, but I pick one here that I consider one of the mere important according to me. I think that this is a good example why you just dont seems to fully get it when it comes to different believes. I would consider myself exactly as logical as you. But what differs us, is that Im seeking an answear to IF there might be a life after death. And my goal is not to fool myself here, I got to take every question I may ask myself equaly seriously even if it doesn't seems to fit in with what the scientists says. These kind of questions about life after death etc, seems to many people, as ridiculous.

This is not a religious belief Im developing here, it's made up of pure logic. I cant claim that Im right about what I believe, but after some years digging in these questions, I do think Im on the right way. and I no longer feel that I have to convince everyone either.

I strongly disagree with equally seriously - but otherwise - I feel again, there is a wilful misinterpreting and accusing and putting into the wrong boxes going on..

I do not exclude anything - see the label "agnostic" I attached to my lapel.
I went about it saying it is not disprovable that we are "only a simulation" for example, too.
Is that so hard to grasp?

And that is, why what I have is a world-view, and what - maybe not you - but Nailler and Astralboy have is a religion.

You two are fully convinced that my materialistic world view is wrong, aren´t you?
That is the difference.
If I got one of you wrongly - please correct.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

And now back to you StephL, these toughts Im outing here is really not easy to digest if you come frome a pretty hardcore belief in what the scientists says, only.

Now back to me, eh?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I dont dissagree in what science has come up with, when it comes to how the earth works. But what science do is not a matter of if this life might have, a destiny or a meaning with.


Science do measure things and take a really close look into stuff. So if you search for an answer if all life got a meaning, then you need to take in everything that's ever exist and occure in this world and try to come to a conclusion WHY everything is happening and not WHAT make things happen mechanically. And science is all about what makes things happen mechanically.

It is hard to accept the truth - I agree.
Go on believing to soothe yourself - nothing wrong with - only - that.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL, I get the feeling that you really try to debunk all this things, and that's a really good thing to go for. But with these kind of questions, there might always be a MAYBE in there when you think you got it. And it's when that maybe appears that you got to stay fair in your conclusions. And the even trickier thing with these questions, is that you often have to make your own research to really get the sense if there is any true value behind it. And if you TRULEY want to make it closer to some kind of answer, you got to remain fair to your self in your conclusions, even if you got a belief in any side of the coint.

So my question to you is: Do you really have the fair view in everything you believe? or do you might want to believe in one thing to much to let it go? You dont really have to answer me this if you dont feel lit to be necessary. But you might ask your self this, and then why your not fair in your belief if that might be the case.

I already stated, that there will always be room for a maybes in my world-view.

Yes - you got to be fair to yourself - even if it hurts - like - "there is no meaning".
Unless you attach it - while alive.


To choose to go against 99++% of data and not even have any own experience - of having died in this case - I can´t understand it.

That does not do justice to human cognitive abilities.
This belief is just a tool - a drug, if you will - for alleviating fear and angst esp. about the cessation of your own existence.
For keeping the basal animal happily functioning and fit for life.
Might be there is a need for transcendence, rather.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Then I would ask what theory of awareness and personal identity does one subscribe to? Are we basically a piece of meat called a brain that is somehow self-aware? Are we some form of electrical activity bopping along through synapses in the brain? Or are we spirits or souls? What? And are these questions beyond the scope of neuroscience.

I guess my point is that there has to be somebody home... somebody there who is aware of being aware. Perhaps it's a shortcoming on my part that I can't conceive of a piece of meat or electrical patterns being self-aware. To press the point, if that is the case, who is it being aware of that self-awareness? But now I'm even confusing myself.

Your last sentence shows, something has set on in your thinking..
Otherwise yes - a piece of very, very special and of course alive - meat.

Originally Posted by Nailler

As for a reason that an immortal soul might choose to impinge on the physical universe and run a human body around... maybe for a game... something to do? It seems to me that the conventional ideas of heaven, nirvana, cosmic consciousnesses etc. would be incredibly boring after a day or two.

Are you fu... serious?? Do you have a grasp of the scope of human suffering over the ages??
A game for the fun of it?
Even the ones dying shortly after their birth?
What´s the point of that?
Sorry - but if I were able to pull off to decide to go play like that - I would sure do a better job for that virtual reality game!!

Originally Posted by Nailler

Kind of neat to have a place to discuss such stuff with others who seem to share my interests. I don't have any friends like that in real life.

N.

Now - there we got something to agree on!

I do have people in real life to talk about such topics and am very thankful for it.

Also did my British jolly darts-mates not fall over backwards when I came up with LD as a topic lately - and that is more exotic than the usual mini-pseudo-philosophical banter.

They didn´t know about it - but they did believe me and found it interesting and maybe worth a try..















Ah - and - of course - here we go - got to watch it now once more myself - this is really something to enjoy - for all of us in this thread I am sure.
But do not deceive yourselves about where they will go with it all - watch it!

Steph, you always provide such great intellectual nourishment! Thank you for the video above

Originally Posted by astralboy

Hey people

Before I begin I want to tell that I'm not religious...lol
I'm very critical about everything, even science. Often scientific theories don't satisfy me, it is very often incomplete.
People in general and science tell us that dreams are produced by the brain. But what is the evidence of that ? Yeah we can see the effects in the brain while we dream, but this is not an evidence that it is produced by the brain. It means only that the brain is active.
So I ask you, what makes you accept that theory, what is the evidence for you?

People often say that lucid dreams and astral projections are the same, and I agree. But produced by the brain... I doubt. For exemple Peridic Table was discovered by Mendeleïev in dreams, there is an agent in the CIA that uses remote viewing, and so much of his discoveries were "real", "true". There is so much people who have "experience out of body" and see later that what they saw was real. And so much more other experiences... How can all this come from the brain ? Is it crazy to just say "coincidence" or imagination ? Or when you say to people who had NDE : it is just your imagination... For me it is wrong to have only theory and criticise those who "experience"... Because experience is direct knowledge. Theory is just opinion.
When we consider that the brain is only a receptor, all these experiences (nde, remote viewing, out of body experiences, lucid dreams...) fit in that theory. But when you consider that dreams are only from the brain then all these experiences seem "no natural".

Please answer if you have real practice and experience in dreams, not if you have only pre-programed thinking, and blind faith (in your god or scientist)

I am not going to read the whole thread so I don't know if anyone mentioned it already or not. But what you are thinking about, brain as a receiver is not a new idea at all. I am actually reading a book at the moment it is called Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, and it exactly explains a lot of things you are asking. Basically as you say our brain is a kind of a "radio" receiving and transmitting between what is called a universal consciousness, more to that there is a lot proof to support the idea that all the reality as we know it is not as we think it is, what scientist think is that natural state of reality is in the wave form and material world is only material because our brain makes it these way for us. Dr. Amit Goswami PhD. said, that we tend to think that the world is already out there without our interaction but it is not and Quantum physics is very clear about it. There is so much more in to the whole subject, you should read this book it is very interesting and gives some unusual perspective about reality.

If you cant read the book watch the workshop videos on the YouTube




They are made by someone in a very simple form so it is super easy to understand, they are based on the book.

By the way this theory is not well accepted it is just a theory but it has some really solid proofs, and it connects to other theories very well. Lets say this universal consciousness is also known by other name of Akashic Field (or akashic records).

Originally Posted by StephL

Are you fu... serious?? Do you have a grasp of the scope of human suffering over the ages??
A game for the fun of it?

Absolutely serious... but not for the fun of it. Rather for the experience of it. Pain and pleasure form a dichotomy... that is they are the two extremes of the same quality. Neither exists without the other. If you're going to eat the apple, you have to eat the whole thing, worms and all.

N.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Then I would ask what theory of awareness and personal identity does one subscribe to?

One isn't required to subscribe to any theory, I think; sometimes subscriptions come with too much baggage. Right, Astralboy?

I, for a one, am between subscriptions, but I guess I'm leaning toward self-awareness (and dreams) existing as a product of physical brains, but not necessarily confined to our physical brains.

Though it isn't really a theory of awareness and personal identity, here is something related that I've been considering for a while:

As I've said on other threads, I think sentience (self-awareness) may have been an accident of nature, a side-effect of the incredible complexity of the human brain. So yes, personality, perception, identity, and dreams are all products or our brains. But it doesn't stop there.

With self-awareness comes thought, and thought, perhaps, generates a distinctive new form of energy that does not fit the template for energy in our universe. So, this "thought energy," or "prana," if your subscriptions lean in an easterly direction, may have a capacity to defy the laws of physics, of space and time. Now here comes the good part: all this thought energy that we form (with every conscious thought we make) is unique to our personalities, our individual Selves. That uniqueness enables it to attract to itself, and over the course of our physical life form a singular focus of energy outside of our physical forms and, yes, perhaps even outside of space and time. The quality of this collection of thought energy would depend on the quality of those thoughts.

When we die, we may have an opportunity to transfer our self-awareness to this unique accumulation of thought energy, making it a new, perhaps eternal, home to our minds.

So basically I think that yes, our minds and souls do originate in our brains, but that is, hopefully, only the beginning; perhaps our physical lives are merely the spark that ignites a much grander existence. The best part is, we'll all know for sure eventually.

[I hope that stuff made sense; I usually spend a lot more time describing it all, and had to leave a lot out this time]

Are we basically a piece of meat called a brain that is somehow self-aware? Are we some form of electrical activity bopping along through synapses in the brain? Or are we spirits or souls?

Does it really need to be an either/or situation? As I already noted, I don't think so; something in the middle seems feasible to me.

I guess my point is that there has to be somebody home... somebody there who is aware of being aware. Perhaps it's a shortcoming on my part that I can't conceive of a piece of meat or electrical patterns being self-aware.

Keep in mind though that the brain is an almost unimaginably complicated piece of meat, and those electrical patterns it weaves are still putting even our most powerful computers to shame. Maybe you might consider a step back from the piece of meat bit, and try to appreciate the amazing end result of a billion years of evolution?

As for a reason that an immortal soul might choose to impinge on the physical universe and run a human body around... maybe for a game... something to do? It seems to me that the conventional ideas of heaven, nirvana, cosmic consciousnesses etc. would be incredibly boring after a day or two.

See, I never got that. I imagine myself an "ascended being" with an all-access pass to the universe(or perhaps even the multiverse), and boredom never even approaches the equation. Given the size of the universe, it seems there would be an eternity of exploring and growing to do; infinite opportunity to experience new things, encounter new worlds and new beings, to learn, to grow -- boredom would be a true stranger in a world with infinite things to do, I think. Keep in mind also that the "the conventional ideas of heaven, nirvana, cosmic consciousnesses etc." are dull because we understand zip about any of it in our current forms, so those conventional ideas become conventional, and dull, because words to describe them simply do not exist.

Also, you're implying that some 7 billion external beings are all bored at the same time, and all chose to do the same thing to fight that boredom... that seems odd to me!

Sageous! I think I've got it!

We can never know our true and ultimate nature because looking in that direction is the ultimate reality check. If we look too close, we wake up from this dream.

Only half-joking.

N.

PS - Really appreciated your thoughts on self-awareness.

Originally Posted by Nailler

We can never know our true and ultimate nature because looking in that direction is the ultimate reality check. If we look too close, we wake up from this dream.

A master of sleep yoga couldn't have said it better, I think...

Originally Posted by astralboy

A cool video

That video was profound.

Originally Posted by Sageous

One isn't required to subscribe to any theory, I think; sometimes subscriptions come with too much baggage. Right, Astralboy?

I, for a one, am between subscriptions, but I guess I'm leaning toward self-awareness (and dreams) existing as a product of physical brains, but not necessarily confined to our physical brains.

Though it isn't really a theory of awareness and personal identity, here is something related that I've been considering for a while:

As I've said on other threads, I think sentience (self-awareness) may have been an accident of nature, a side-effect of the incredible complexity of the human brain. So yes, personality, perception, identity, and dreams are all products or our brains. But it doesn't stop there.

Completely agree on this.

Originally Posted by Sageous

With self-awareness comes thought, and thought, perhaps, generates a distinctive new form of energy that does not fit the template for energy in our universe.

So, this "thought energy," or "prana," if your subscriptions lean in an easterly direction, may have a capacity to defy the laws of physics, of space and time. Now here comes the good part: all this thought energy that we form (with every conscious thought we make) is unique to our personalities, our individual Selves. That uniqueness enables it to attract to itself, and over the course of our physical life form a singular focus of energy outside of our physical forms and, yes, perhaps even outside of space and time. The quality of this collection of thought energy would depend on the quality of those thoughts.

Maybe.
But if there was some such "energy", or even a completely new phenomenon - which I would find more likely, if I go that direction -if that were discovered it would be in accordance to the natural laws, I believe.
And why not?
So often it seems as if it would diminish the worth of something, if it follows these laws.
I do not understand this sentiment.

We might need to find some additional laws of nature for this hypothetical situation - but that wouldn´t be the first time, we found something unexpected in physical reality.

Just to make it clear - that is maybe in my book, that such a system is in action already - veery maybe only.

Originally Posted by Sageous

When we die, we may have an opportunity to transfer our self-awareness to this unique accumulation of thought energy, making it a new, perhaps eternal, home to our minds.

So basically I think that yes, our minds and souls do originate in our brains, but that is, hopefully, only the beginning; perhaps our physical lives are merely the spark that ignites a much grander existence. The best part is, we'll all know for sure eventually.

Completely agree again.

Originally Posted by Sageous

[I hope that stuff made sense; I usually spend a lot more time describing it all, and had to leave a lot out this time]

It obviously does to me and to Nailler!
Well said.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Does it really need to be an either/or situation? As I already noted, I don't think so; something in the middle seems feasible to me.

Hm - I am not sure, if you talk about there being the answer yes and no, both correct, to the exact same question at same time - or what I state below..?
I think, there is one answer, but I deem it wise to not subscribe to something just now yet..

Originally Posted by Sageous

Keep in mind though that the brain is an almost unimaginably complicated piece of meat, and those electrical patterns it weaves are still putting even our most powerful computers to shame. Maybe you might consider a step back from the piece of meat bit, and try to appreciate the amazing end result of a billion years of evolution?

Thank you!
I find it awe-inspiring, this piece of meat!!

Originally Posted by Sageous

See, I never got that. I imagine myself an "ascended being" with an all-access pass to the universe(or perhaps even the multiverse), and boredom never even approaches the equation. Given the size of the universe, it seems there would be an eternity of exploring and growing to do; infinite opportunity to experience new things, encounter new worlds and new beings, to learn, to grow -- boredom would be a true stranger in a world with infinite things to do, I think. Keep in mind also that the "the conventional ideas of heaven, nirvana, cosmic consciousnesses etc." are dull because we understand zip about any of it in our current forms, so those conventional ideas become conventional, and dull, because words to describe them simply do not exist.

Also, you're implying that some 7 billion external beings are all bored at the same time, and all chose to do the same thing to fight that boredom... that seems odd to me!

Yes!!
Thank you once more.
This idea that such powerful entities, which as said above - could pull such a feat off as to go play in such a way - they sure got something better to do.
You could pose - most people are not people but non-sentient game-characters - like DCs - but that would seriously be a sick view in my eyes.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Sageous! I think I've got it!

We can never know our true and ultimate nature because looking in that direction is the ultimate reality check. If we look too close, we wake up from this dream.

Only half-joking.

N.

PS - Really appreciated your thoughts on self-awareness.

Ah!
That I like much better now!

Originally Posted by DogRobinson

That video was profound.

Do please watch mine as well - the "What We Still Don´t Know - Why Are We Here" one.
It is a bit longer - but neither boring nor meant to "debunk" anything - quite the opposite - it is very open-minded.

It has beautiful pictures and enthusiastic scientists/cosmologists with really great and profound ideas - also and esp. about the metaphysical considerings of mankind!
A great, great video, which really broadened my horizon!

Aand - if you found the flatland video profound - I like the one, Carl Sagan did on the book Flatland more:



Not so much a comic-strip - that is up to taste, of course.
Definitively more profound than these videos of course is the book, they both are based on:

'Flatland' by Edwin A. Abbott
Unfortunately without pictures - but with much more content - it is also a social satire on 19th century not very open minded society. Funny, I mean.
Enjoy!

"Are you fu... serious?? Do you have a grasp of the scope of human suffering over the ages??
A game for the fun of it?"

@StephL

And what if all of this life is not "serious" at all? When you dream and see suffering it is sad and you cry! But when you wake up you say to yourself "LOL it was just a dream". But in that dream it was so REAL! Maybe one day you will wake up from this "life-dream" and say to yourself "LOL I was too serious... all of this was just an experience and lesson".
think about it... it is Buddha's theory ... life could be an illusion, a dream.

More serious answer:

When there is ignorance there is error. When you suffer it is because you ignore the law or formula. Like in math when you don't get the right result it is because there is error, and the ignorance of the formula. And what you call suffering could just be suffering in appearence. There is only experience and lessons. Humanity suffer and will suffer... But not "for fun" but because there is something to learn. Even in what you call "dreams" you suffer when you don't know that you are the master of it. When you know it you don't suffer! When you suffer in your video game it is because you don't know how to play. In the this "life" the same thing applies. I even know people who suffer because they loose in a video game party, they know that it is just a Tv and a game and they get angry and break their tv! lol ... For some people it is so easy to suffer, you know
I suffered so much in the past, now not at all! It is because I understood at some degree this life-dream. Like I understood my "dreams". When you wait for God or angels, scientist or saviors to help you you will suffer, when you think that everything happens by chance or accident you will suffer... When you think that you're a meat victim of chance and accidents you will suffer. But when you observe yourself, your mind, and when you observe your life, you will find "that something". Instead of looking and observing the effects, like our science ... search The Cause of all causes. The Law of all laws. But yeah it is so difficult for some people to have responsability for their life. It is so easy to blame chance, god, devil, angels... Some people will never ask a question : "And what if my "dreams" are my creation ?"