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

^^ Though I'm hesitant to interrupt such a glorious rant, Steph, I felt a need to add a quick, now quite irrelevant, correction to a now old post:

Originally Posted by StephL

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.

... Yes, I should have said things like "does not fit the existing template for energy," or "defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them." Surely should this thought energy ever be "discovered," new law would likely need to be added to the books... an action I would welcome, because new physics laws always make life (and philosophy) much more interesting!

Okay, that's it; interruption over.

StephL I would just say that it sure could be a misinterpretion from my side about you. To me, you seems totally open-minded to a large extent, but sometimes not. I really do respect your opinions, so my apologys to you if this seems to offending in any way.

Just a thought on what I think might causing this misinterpretion between us. I think will be the fact that I aproach this thread in a logic philosophical manner. And you, in a more scientifically, logic reasoning manner. The twist in this could look like something like this then. Example: What would be the reason to hit person A in the face by person B? In a true scientific way would be able to explain in detail how the anatomy and atoms are working in person B's body to make this happen in time and space, all acording to the law of physics. In a philosophical aproach to this question. One could not ignore the scientifically proven fact, but there might be a even "deeper" reason for person B to hit person A in a philosophical manner. And that could in theorie be the case that person A been sleeping with person B's wife.

So in this silly little example, both views of this occuring event could be eventually right, but in different ways.


StephL I watched your liked videos and It sure was good one's to

Because everyone start to sharing all these awesome vids, I think it might do the same. And this vid is actually about an neurosurgeon that got an NDE(Near-Death-Excperience). He's name is Dr. Eben Alexander III. and the interviewer is Bob Olson, who to me seems like a really legit guy with a true open mind. This interview is really worth watching if your curious about a possible theory about a life after death. There is a good "proof" in this interview, but there is also a beautiful experience he's sharing. So for all who like to watch this, enjoy! Proof Of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey Into The Afterlife with Dr. Eben Alexander III - YouTube And dont forget that this NDE's occur all the time around the world, but not always with this kind of profound "proof" in them.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Though I'm hesitant to interrupt such a glorious rant, Steph, I felt a need to add a quick, now quite irrelevant, correction to a now old post:



... Yes, I should have said things like "does not fit the existing template for energy," or "defy the laws of physics as we currently understand them." Surely should this thought energy ever be "discovered," new law would likely need to be added to the books... an action I would welcome, because new physics laws always make life (and philosophy) much more interesting!

Okay, that's it; interruption over.

Oh - all right then - agreed on this as well!
Misunderstood you there, I did!
It makes a huge difference to me - this "as we currently understand them" - because some people proclaim something inherently beyond and not bound by any natural laws as being behind human nature.
If there is something yet undiscovered in a truly new way - which I doubt (in this sense - I do not want to open up ten more chapters now..) - then this something still had to be of this world in my eyes.
Just we didn´t know about it yet.

So - under this cautioning premise - I fully agree!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL I would just say that it sure could be a misinterpretion from my side about you. To me, you seems totally open-minded to a large extent, but sometimes not. I really do respect your opinions, so my apologys to you if this seems to offending in any way.

Just a thought on what I think might causing this misinterpretion between us. I think will be the fact that I aproach this thread in a logic philosophical manner. And you, in a more scientifically, logic reasoning manner. The twist in this could look like something like this then.

So in this silly little example, both views of this occuring event could be eventually right, but in different ways.

Okay - thank you for clarifying - then I need not defend myself against being seen as closed-minded.
But - what exactly is the difference between scientific and philosophical logic?
That is truly a new one to me.
How do you define logic?
Can you at least circumscribe it?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL I watched your liked videos and It sure was good one's to

Because everyone start to sharing all these awesome vids, I think it might do the same. And this vid is actually about an neurosurgeon that got an NDE(Near-Death-Excperience). He's name is Dr. Eben Alexander III. and the interviewer is Bob Olson, who to me seems like a really legit guy with a true open mind. This interview is really worth watching if your curious about a possible theory about a life after death. There is a good "proof" in this interview, but there is also a beautiful experience he's sharing. So for all who like to watch this, enjoy! Proof Of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey Into The Afterlife with Dr. Eben Alexander III - YouTube And dont forget that this NDE's occur all the time around the world, but not always with this kind of profound "proof" in them.

This is nice, that you enjoyed them - I really like them too!
I will have to watch the neurosurgeon talk about his near-death-experience - but I tell you one thing right up front - being a neurosurgeon does not say a lot about a person and it´s potentially twisted world-view.

If you do not believe me - there was a time, when neurosurgeons operated out the frontal lobes of patients with mental illnesses.
Don´t get me wrong - I am not slagging any neurosurgeons - not at all - but they are seen in modern pop-culture to be the pinnacle of human skill and intelligence - but that is something else than rational introspection.

Without watching - but I will go ahead and do so - too deep into this thread, the me, by now - without watching - there is no doubt about an OBE sensation taking place regularly in near-death situations.
Making lots of sense - biologically - if you do survive - you have spared yourself the trauma of literal agony (death-struggle).
Shouldn´t you as a lucid dreamer understand about this best?

There are data, which I believe to be able to dig out, on a chemical basis, even.
Now..

That would be something - thanks for reminding me for now - I will look into that..


Oh - and:

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Example:

What would be the reason to hit person A in the face by person B?

In a true scientific way would be able to explain in detail how the anatomy and atoms are working in person B's body to make this happen in time and space, all acording to the law of physics.


In a philosophical aproach to this question. One could not ignore the scientifically proven fact, but there might be a even "deeper" reason for person B to hit person A in a philosophical manner.

And that could in theorie be the case that person A been sleeping with person B's wife.

Riight - in how far is having sex not in the realm of physics?
And the drive to be the only one to impregnate the woman, you got - not coded by evolution into "our" brains?
Really?
Come on - you can do better than that in terms of philosophical motives!
How about fear of death, to give you an easy one?

Let's cool down, everyone, and please be respectful.

StephL that's some excelent questions you asking here, and I will try to explain them as good as I can. So let's digg in to this right away

what exactly is the difference between scientific and philosophical logic?

Scientific logic is in my opinion based on the current understanding from scientifical proofs, wich will be ALOT of knowledge in how all this materia is interacting all togheter. So a pure scientifical logic will not be able to handle all questions from ones imagination, because of the strict path scientifical logic needs to follow to remain being called science. So there will be kind of big boundaries then, if you for instance try to find out where dreams originate from. Because in a scientific view, you will only end up with the answer that dreams occur in the brain according to the current knowledge of science as it is today. A philosophical logic view is only limited by ones own imagination, so therefore there is in my opinion not a single tought you shouldn't take seriously if a question interests you. So you will never have the safe base that scientific will offer you, but in a philosophical view, you will allways have the chance to take a scientific claim and try to bring more tought and imagination to it than a scientist will ever be able to do, because the scientist is always bound to their current proofs about how the earth ans space work mechanically. Maybe that could be the case with Einstein, one of the greatest scientists in the world. That he used his imagination beyond the stated scientific truth's that's ruled then.

How do you define logic?

I would describe it as pointers to the truth, based on one owns summarized learning about life. (So ones logic will often differ from person to person more or less.)

Can you at least circumscribe it?

I can tell you one of the most important thing to take in considiration according to me when it comes to logic. And this is a rule you can apply on everything. When your mind gets frustrated, that's only the biproduct of the mind not getting all the pieces in the puzzle. So you always got to rethink what you been thinking/doing if you get frustrated. Peoples ideas/actions should never need to obeying one owns world-view, but everything needs to be accepted in one owns mind. This has always being the case, when I've been looking back on my misstakes.

Riight - in how far is having sex not in the realm of physics?
And the drive to be the only one to impregnate the woman, you got - not coded by evolution into "our" brains?
Really?
Come on - you can do better than that in terms of philosophical motives!
How about fear of death, to give you an easy one?

Might be a bad example from my side, but atleast I tryed. When you take on a more philosophical view in this, then I think you will know what I mean.

One last thing. What Astralboy last claimed, is true in my book to. But you could change the "formula" to understanding instead, that might get it a little easier to understand. And the pain he refers to is not physical pain, but merely psychological pain.

Sorry guys - Scionox - that was a bit of a bad mood of mine - I try to display more of an equanimity - Astralboy, Nailler and DreamyBear - I was rash and graphic and I could have done better!
Don´t worry, though - I will try to do my best!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

StephL that's some excelent questions you asking here, and I will try to explain them as good as I can. So let's digg in to this right away
Scientific logic is in my opinion based on the current understanding from scientifical proofs, wich will be ALOT of knowledge in how all this materia is interacting all togheter. So a pure scientifical logic will not be able to handle all questions from ones imagination, because of the strict path scientifical logic needs to follow to remain being called science. So there will be kind of big boundaries then, if you for instance try to find out where dreams originate from. Because in a scientific view, you will only end up with the answer that dreams occur in the brain according to the current knowledge of science as it is today. A philosophical logic view is only limited by ones own imagination, so

Okay - I come dig with you for better understanding - mine and yours.
I believe I get, where you are coming from - but I feel, I want to de-tangle the words a bit.

Philosophical logic is the same logic, which is being used by scientists and neither is bound by imagination only - see bit deeper below on the term logic.
And a true scientist - following the scientific method - will not categorically oppose a view a priori - he will challenge it and go about the project to falsify a hypothesis.
And if it holds up and cannot be falsified - and can be shown experimentally - then it is a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

..therefore there is in my opinion not a single tought you shouldn't take seriously if a question interests you.

So you will never have the safe base that scientific will offer you, but in a philosophical view, you will allways have the chance to take a scientific claim and try to bring more tought and imagination to it than a scientist will ever be able to do, because the scientist is always bound to their current proofs about how the earth ans space work mechanically.

If science were bound to their current proofs – it could go home, so to speak!
But - people are people - and show me an old philosopher, esp. a reknown one - for whom in his later age at least did not apply something similar to Clarke´s first law..

I really like Arthur C. Clarke, British science-fiction writer and his 3 laws of prediction:

1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.



But what this is about is rusted heads in old people who think they know it all.
Science is not like you think it is.
In principle being open to the challenge of being disproved, overthrown and furthered/substituted/newly formulated - that is how it works.

What I want to put forth for you is the definition of the very "scientific method":



Wikipedia:

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge.

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them.
These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Originally Posted by StephL , better put now, would have sounded much better..

Could you please explain to me, what the word logic means to you?

I would describe it as pointers to the truth, based on one owns summarized learning about life. (So ones logic will often differ from person to person more or less.)

I can tell you one of the most important thing to take in considiration according to me when it comes to logic. And this is a rule you can apply on everything.
When your mind gets frustrated, that's only the biproduct of the mind not getting all the pieces in the puzzle. So you always got to rethink what you been thinking/doing if you get frustrated.

What you are describing here - and nicely, I find - is "heuristics".
A word which I find useful to know, out of the load of "philosophical terminology"..

Wikipedia:

Heuristic refers to experience-based techniques for problem solving, learning, and discovery that give a solution which is not guaranteed to be optimal.
Where the exhaustive search is impractical, heuristic methods are used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution via mental shortcuts to ease the cognitive load of making a decision.
Examples of this method include using a rule of thumb, an educated guess, an intuitive judgement, stereotyping, or common sense.

In more precise terms, heuristics are strategies using readily accessible, though loosely applicable, information to control problem solving in human beings and machines.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Peoples ideas/actions should never need to obeying one owns world-view, but everything needs to be accepted in one owns mind. This has always being the case, when I've been looking back on my misstakes.

I agree - one´s ideas and one´s actions should never need to obey the world-view one has put together with one´s thinking in interplay with the world as such.
Call it world-view, or use other words. Weltbild is mine.
It is not possible for a human (in my world-view ..) to be free of bias - hence I agree with you - and always thought so.
I want to keep my thinking flexible - but I also want it sharp, awake, - ready for cognitive action.
I want not be fooled - and not be led astray along pointless meanderings - my time is too precious for that.

Learning from mistakes - one of the best sources of learning - it dwells indeed in the realm of heuristics.
And we do understand us on that page - if you come over and we say, what we talk about here is heuristics instead of calling it logic - philosophic or otherwise?
I do of course and did use logic in a way, poorly suited as well - but the more we dig into this here and the more serious we want to take it - the more care we need to take about the words, I find.


But logic is a defined term - not the first time, I look it up - and I will cite a lot of Wikipedia once more.
But it is a lot of interesting stuff and not pertinent to this thread here in its entirety.
So - you could maybe correctly accusing me of going off-topic - but there..
I will mix spoilerings in, to cushion the blow a bit - it is easier for you anyway, than opening tabs with Wikipedia for yourselves..

As to what comes to my mind now, before I do that - long ago, when I was new on here - I came across this thread of Xei´s:

http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...tence-god.html

And - believe it or not - I have two pages handwritten stuff - was one of those moods of mine - in the end I did not post - having the feeling of a point, from which I could eventually roll this up...
But - I told myself "not now" - muttering "Anselm, ts -pfft" etc. and throwing my hands in the air at 4 o´clock in the morning..

Logic is a tool, to extract from language clear assertions - statements that can be correct, logically, or not.
See below - it is not about the content.
You can, if you can, that is - work on a scholastic supposed logical proof of god - and see, if he follows logic in what he proposes.
Which is not trivial or even easy.


Okay - blabla..
Here comes the central point of the logical form vs. content right up front:

Wikipedia:

The concept of logical form is central to logic, it being held that the validity of an argument is determined by its logical form, not by its content.

Logic arose (see below) from a concern with correctness of argumentation.
Modern logicians usually wish to ensure that logic studies just those arguments that arise from appropriately general forms of inference.
For example, Thomas Hofweber writes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that:

logic "does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference, be they linguistic, mental, or other representations".

Spoiler for bit more wikipedia:

Traditional Aristotelian syllogistic logic and modern symbolic logic are examples of formal logics.


Informal logic is the study of natural language arguments. The study of fallacies is an especially important branch of informal logic. The dialogues of Plato are good examples of informal logic.

Formal logic is the study of inference with purely formal content. An inference possesses a purely formal content if it can be expressed as a particular application of a wholly abstract rule, that is, a rule that is not about any particular thing or property. The works of Aristotle contain the earliest known formal study of logic. Modern formal logic follows and expands on Aristotle.[7] In many definitions of logic, logical inference and inference with purely formal content are the same. This does not render the notion of informal logic vacuous, because no formal logic captures all of the nuance of natural language.

Symbolic logic is the study of symbolic abstractions that capture the formal features of logical inference. Symbolic logic is often divided into two branches: propositional logic and predicate logic.

Mathematical logic is an extension of symbolic logic into other areas, in particular to the study of model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory.

Main article: Logical form

Logic is generally considered formal when it analyses and represents the form of any valid argument type. The form of an argument is displayed by representing its sentences in the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical language to make its content usable in formal inference. If one considers the notion of form too philosophically loaded, one could say that formalizing simply means translating English sentences into the language of logic.

This is called showing the logical form of the argument. It is necessary because indicative sentences of ordinary language show a considerable variety of form and complexity that makes their use in inference impractical. It requires, first, ignoring those grammatical features irrelevant to logic (such as gender and declension, if the argument is in Latin), replacing conjunctions irrelevant to logic (such as 'but') with logical conjunctions like 'and' and replacing ambiguous, or alternative logical expressions ('any', 'every', etc.) with expressions of a standard type (such as 'all', or the universal quantifier ∀).

Second, certain parts of the sentence must be replaced with schematic letters. Thus, for example, the expression all As are Bs shows the logical form common to the sentences all men are mortals, all cats are carnivores, all Greeks are philosophers and so on.

Spoiler for parts for the more interested..:

That the concept of form is fundamental to logic was already recognized in ancient times. Aristotle uses variable letters to represent valid inferences in Prior Analytics, leading Jan Łukasiewicz to say that the introduction of variables was 'one of Aristotle's greatest inventions'. According to the followers of Aristotle (such as Ammonius), only the logical principles stated in schematic terms belong to logic, not those given in concrete terms. The concrete terms man', 'mortal, etc., are analogous to the substitution values of the schematic placeholders 'A', 'B', 'C', which were called the 'matter' (Greek 'hyle') of the inference.

The fundamental difference between modern formal logic and traditional, or Aristotelian logic, lies in their differing analysis of the logical form of the sentences they treat.

In the traditional view, the form of the sentence consists of (1) a subject (e.g., 'man') plus a sign of quantity ('all' or 'some' or 'no'); (2) the copula, which is of the form 'is' or 'is not'; (3) a predicate (e.g., 'mortal'). Thus: all men are mortal. The logical constants such as 'all', 'no' and so on, plus sentential connectives such as 'and' and 'or' were called 'syncategorematic' terms (from the Greek 'kategorei' – to predicate, and 'syn' – together with). This is a fixed scheme, where each judgment has an identified quantity and copula, determining the logical form of the sentence.
According to the modern view, the fundamental form of a simple sentence is given by a recursive schema, involving logical connectives, such as a quantifier with its bound variable, which are joined by juxtaposition to other sentences, which in turn may have logical structure.
The modern view is more complex, since a single judgement of Aristotle's system involves two or more logical connectives. For example, the sentence "All men are mortal" involves, in term logic, two non-logical terms "is a man" (here M) and "is mortal" (here D): the sentence is given by the judgement A(M,D). In predicate logic, the sentence involves the same two non-logical concepts, here analyzed as m(x) and d(x), and the sentence is given by \forall x. (m(x) \rightarrow d(x)), involving the logical connectives for universal quantification and implication.
But equally, the modern view is more powerful. Medieval logicians recognized the problem of multiple generality, where Aristotelian logic is unable to satisfactorily render such sentences as "Some guys have all the luck", because both quantities "all" and "some" may be relevant in an inference, but the fixed scheme that Aristotle used allows only one to govern the inference. Just as linguists recognize recursive structure in natural languages, it appears that logic needs recursive structure.

Deductive and inductive reasoning, and retroductive inference

Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (if a, then b).
However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic.
Similarly, it is important to distinguish deductive validity and inductive validity (called "cogency").
An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true but the conclusion false.
An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid; its premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.

The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations.
The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal than others; some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability. For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic.

Spoiler for more hidden logic..;):

Retroductive inference is a mode of reasoning that Peirce proposed as operating over and above induction and deduction to "open up new ground" in processes of theorizing (1911, p. 2). He defines retroduction as a logical inference that allows us to "render comprehensible" some observations/events we perceive, by relating these back to a posited state of affairs that would help to shed light on the observations (Peirce, 1911, p. 2). He remarks that the "characteristic formula" of reasoning that he calls retroduction is that it involves reasoning from a consequent (any observed/experienced phenomena that confront us) to an antecedent (that is, a posited state of things that helps us to render comprehensible the observed phenomenon). Or, as he otherwise puts it, it can be considered as "regressing from a consequent to a hypothetical antecedent" (1911, p. 4).

Some authors suggest that this mode of inference can be used within social theorizing to postulate social structures/mechanisms that explain the way that social outcomes arise in social life—and that in turn indicates that these structures or mechanisms are alterable with sufficient social will (and envisioning of alternatives). In other words, this logic is specifically liberative in that it can be used to point to transformative potential in our way of organizing our social existence by our re-examining/exploring the deep structures that generate outcomes (and life chances for people). In her book on New Racism (2010) Norma Romm offers an account of various interpretations of what can be said to be involved in retroduction as a form of inference and how this can also be seen to be linked to a style of theorizing (and caring) where processes of knowing (which she sees as dialogically rooted) are linked to social justice projects.

Consistency, validity, soundness, and completeness

Among the important properties that logical systems can have:

Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Validity, which means that the system's rules of proof never allow a false inference from true premises. A logical system has the property of soundness when the logical system has the property of validity and uses only premises that prove true (or, in the case of axioms, are true by definition).

Completeness, of a logical system, which means that if a formula is true, it can be proven (if it is true, it is a theorem of the system).

Soundness, the term soundness has multiple separate meanings, which creates a bit of confusion throughout the literature. Most commonly, soundness refers to logical systems, which means that if some formula can be proven in a system, then it is true in the relevant model/structure (if A is a theorem, it is true).
This is the converse of completeness. A distinct, peripheral use of soundness refers to arguments, which means that the premises of a valid argument are true in the actual world.

Spoiler for little of more..:

Some logical systems do not have all four properties. As an example, Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that sufficiently complex formal systems of arithmetic cannot be consistent and complete; however, first-order predicate logics not extended by specific axioms to be arithmetic formal systems with equality can be complete and consistent.

Rival conceptions of logic

By contrast, Immanuel Kant argued that logic should be conceived as the science of judgement, an idea taken up in Gottlob Frege's logical and philosophical work. But Frege's work is ambiguous in the sense that it is both concerned with the "laws of thought" as well as with the "laws of truth", i.e. it both treats logic in the context of a theory of the mind, and treats logic as the study of abstract formal structures.

Please do not accuse me people of "only copy and paste"

I have read all this - understood - and many things newly understood as well, I have copied, edited, put together and it took me quite some while.
It is not un-digested and does not feel just thrown about, I hope.
At least I tried.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Maybe that could be the case with Einstein, one of the greatest scientists in the world. That he used his imagination beyond the stated scientific truth's that's ruled then.

Actually what Einstein was doing and thinking is very much on topic when we come to the repeated claims of a spiritual "energy".
Sageous was asking the "where" is the spirit question - and I want bring up once more the "what" is the spirit supposed to be.

Information is never without medium, never pure - it and gets lost.
But it is definitively not "energy" either.

Many spiritual persons like Einstein really a lot - and it is even not so hard to understand a bit more, what he himself has meant by "energy" - the same, that all physics and all of real-life use is about, too in the end - it is a measurement of the potential of something to do work.

I am a real fan of a guy called Brian Dunning, and his Sceptoid podcasts..
He is explaining it all very well and clearly - not a rant, in my eyes:


Skeptoid:

Energy

"I'm feeling a little low today, so let's tap into a source of energy from a neighboring dimension as a quick upper.

Faith in pseudoscience is rampant. Everywhere you turn, intelligent people fully accept the existence of anything from psychic phenomena, to angels, to new age healing techniques, to ancient health schemes based on mysterious energy fields not understood by science. Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on "energy," and when the performers are asked to explain, they'll gladly lecture about the body's energy fields, the universe's energy fields, Chi, Prana, Orgone, negative energy, positive energy, and just about anything else that needs a familiar sounding word to explain and justify it. Clearly, there are too many loose interpretations of the word energy, to the point where most people probably have no idea exactly what energy really is.

I believe that if more people had a clear understanding of energy — and it's not complicated — there would be less susceptibility to pseudoscience, and more attention paid to actual technologies and methods that are truly constructive and useful.

A friend told me of her ability to perform minor healings, and her best explanation was that she drew energy from another dimension. She had recently rented What the Bleep Do We Know, so she was well prepared to explain that alternate dimensions and realities should be taken for granted, since science doesn't really know anything, and thus those things cannot be disproven. That's fine, I'll concede that she can make contact with another dimension: after all, the latest M theories posit that there are probably ten or eleven of them floating around, and I'll just hope that my friend's is not one of those that are collapsed into impossibly small spaces. What I was really interested in was the nature of this vaguely defined energy that she could contact.

I asked what type of energy is it, and how is it stored? Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel? Is it an explosive compound? Is it food? These are examples of actual ways that energy can be stored.

In popular New Age culture, "energy" has somehow become a noun unto itself. "Energy" is considered to be literally like a glowing, hovering, shimmering cloud, from which adepts can draw power, and feel rejuvenated. Imagine a vaporous creature from the original Star Trek series, and you'll have a good idea of what New Agers think energy is.

In fact, energy is not really a noun at all. Energy is a measurement of something's ability to perform work. Given this context, when spiritualists talk about your body's energy fields, they're really saying nothing that's even remotely meaningful. Yet this kind of talk has become so pervasive in our society that the vast majority of Americans accept that energy exists as a self-contained force, floating around in glowing clouds, and can be commanded by spiritualist adepts to do just about anything.

There is well known authority for the simple, concrete, scientific definition of energy.

Take Einstein's equation, E=mc2, that every schoolchild knows but so few spend the 30 seconds it takes to understand.

Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.
Simplify it.
Mass can be expressed in grams, and speed can be expressed in meters per second.
Thus, an object's energy equals the amount of work it takes to move a few grams a few meters in a few seconds.

Energy is a measurement of work.

If I lift a rock, I'm inputting enough potential energy to dent the surface of the table one centimeter when I drop it. The calories of chemical potential energy that my bloodstream absorbs when I eat a Power Bar charge up my muscles enough to dig two hundred pounds of dirt in my garden.

Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.

When spiritualists discuss energy, don't blindly accept what they're saying simply because energy is a word you're familiar with, and that sounds scientific.
In many cases, their usage of the word is meaningless.
When you hear the word "energy" casually used to explain a mystical force or capability, require clarification.
Require that the energy be defined. Is it heat? Is it a spinning flywheel?

Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability."
Does the usage still make sense? Are you actually being given any information that supports the claim being made?
Remember, energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential.

Take the following claim of Kundalini Yoga* as an example: "The release and ascent of the dormant spiritual energy enables the aspirant to transcend the effects of the elements and achieve consciousness."

This would be a great thing if energy was indeed that shimmering cloud that can go wherever it's needed and perform miracles.
But it's not, so in this case, we substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and find that the sentence is not attempting to measure or quantify anything other than the word "energy" itself.

We have a "dormant spiritual measurable work capability," and no further information.
That's pretty vague, isn't it? For this claim to have any merit, they must at least describe how this energy is being stored or manifested.

Is it potential energy stored in the chemistry of fat cells?
Is it heat that can spread through the body?
Is it a measurable amount of electromagnetism, and if so, where's the magnet?
In any event, it must be measurable and precisely quantifiable, or it can't be called energy, by definition.

There's a good reason why you don't hear medical doctors or pharmacists talking about energy fields: it's meaningless. I think it's generally good policy to remain open minded and be ready to hear claims that involve energy, but approach them skeptically, and scientifically. The next time you hear such a claim, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability" and you'll be well equipped to separate the silly from the solid."

*I personally do not have any knowledge about Kundalini Yoga - so I hope, the citation is correct and nobody newly offended..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Might be a bad example from my side, but atleast I tryed. When you take on a more philosophical view in this, then I think you will know what I mean.

Well - I find the term philosophical misapplied here.
The example - and yeah - sorry for being bitchy.. - would for me rather fall into the category psychology - and psychology on a level, which is very close in motivational framework, with which evolution has also equipped our animal-friends - just like us.
So - it really rather belongs in the realm of neurobiology based motivational/behavioural explanations.
I thought, it would not really get at, what you are trying to get at.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

One last thing. What Astralboy last claimed, is true in my book to.
But you could change the "formula" to understanding instead, that might get it a little easier to understand.

What exactly - not nastily asked - I am really unsure, what statement of his you refer to?
Could you please give me the whole statement together, how you want it understood?
I do not understand it like this.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

And the pain he refers to is not physical pain, but merely psychological pain.

Are you sure there?

I was asking astralboy about all human suffering, when he claimed, that all us humans on earth are in "real" reality only gamers on this earth - playing a game with this existence - all of us - you, me - everybody.

How come we all have forgotten, that we play - all of us, except the few with this "formula"?
That would be a different scenario than 'Matrix' where we are not the players, but cattle - directed, abused and held in the dark as to the virtuality of our world.

And none of these people - none of "us" are "aware" of being in an educational self-improvement game, only - nothing at all having a real consequence.

If it was our choice - why the physical and psychological suffering - in which form ever - esp. if in not self-caused and not avoidable cases?
He did not say - you are the master of your mood - and even that I doubt for children in really dire conditions..

What is there to learn/enjoy forgetting it is a game and for two days playing normal baby existence or what have you - use your imagination?
Also think about the numbers!
But okay - I think, I made this my point quite clear enough already.

If you only talk about psychological suffering in mature and actually wise people - then yes - as the Stoics did propose already - you are the master of your thoughts and could and should be the master of your mood as well.
Equanimity and all..

Once more - sorry for having been going exploding a bit - I hope this post of mine does not step on even more toes in an uncalled for nasty way - actually I hope, I don´t step on anybody´s feelings at all - but I do not think it is possible as such as well in this terrain.

Speaking of cutting and pasting:

I came across the following quote in David Brin's Existence, and it seemed relevant to this thread (he may have been quoting Tom Robbins, BTW, so we might have a triple cut-and-paste going on here ):

"Science gives man what he needs.
But magic gives man what he wants.

For all its beauty, honesty, and effectiveness at improving the human condition, science demands a terrible price -- that we accept what experiments tell us about the universe, whether we like it or not. It's about consensus and teamwork and respectful critical argument, working with, and through, natural law. It requires that we utter, frequently, those hateful words -- "I might be wrong."

On the other hand, magic is what happens when we convince ourselves that something is, even when it isn't. Subjective Truth, winning over mere objective fact. The will, triumphing over all else. No wonder, even after the cornucopia of wealth and knowledge engendered by science, magic remains more popular, more embedded in the human heart."

Again, just thought I'd share, because it seemed relevant here...

Originally Posted by Sageous

Speaking of cutting and pasting:

I came across the following quote in David Brin's Existence, and it seemed relevant to this thread (he may have been quoting Tom Robbins, BTW, so we might have a triple cut-and-paste going on here ):

"Science gives man what he needs.
But magic gives man what he wants.

For all its beauty, honesty, and effectiveness at improving the human condition, science demands a terrible price -- that we accept what experiments tell us about the universe, whether we like it or not. It's about consensus and teamwork and respectful critical argument, working with, and through, natural law. It requires that we utter, frequently, those hateful words -- "I might be wrong."

On the other hand, magic is what happens when we convince ourselves that something is, even when it isn't. Subjective Truth, winning over mere objective fact. The will, triumphing over all else. No wonder, even after the cornucopia of wealth and knowledge engendered by science, magic remains more popular, more embedded in the human heart."

Again, just thought I'd share, because it seemed relevant here...

Oh Sageous - phantastisch!!
This is a jewel - and if I would have had it myself - I would have brought it in here - absolutely no doubt at all.
Going into my notorious copy-paste-department - and with your connotations, as to where is comes from (including you wink.gif)!

How I have missed this type of topics xD

People in general and science tell us that dreams are produced by the brain. But what is the evidence of that ?

The fact that dream content originates from memories.
The fact we use the same mechanics to perceive a waking sensation as we use to dream it.
The fact that there is so far no reason to think that any sensory perception can occur without the brain, or that anything else beside the brain is responsible for those perceptions.

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.

Argument from ignorance. It's already somewhat confusing watching you being skeptic of science, which is considered the pinnacle of skepticism. It's like you're saying you're skeptic of skepticism. Like someone said, science doesn't work with beliefs, and theories are not opinions, they are models of interpretation based on facts from the observable world. But you seem to act under the assumption that if something can't be explained, then it's because our theory is wrong. Actually, those singular facts can be explained. It's an established fact that sleep/dream work as a memory regulation mechanism, so it's not that impressive that many people found solutions for their problems while dreaming. Besides, you're not even accounting for the probability of that happening, because the only reports you got are the famous ones.

When we consider that the brain is only a receptor

The brain is not a receptor, that is a fact. For starters, if the brain was a simple receptor, then you wouldn't be able to see properly, due the gap on your retina. You also lack around 4hours of vision every day just to account to eye movement. Placebo effects wouldn't exist. Consciousness wouldn't exist. We could go on and on, but I think you get the point that what everything you perceive is a simulation, not the actual reality.

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)

It's impossible to use "real practice and experience" in dreams as a testimony of knowledge. Picture the brain as a television: even if you know all the circuits, pixels, cables, you can't still see the picture it originates. If we apply your logic, how do we know thoughts come from the brain?

Amen Zoth! wink.gif

Lol Zoth...
You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.
You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.
And thoughts don't originate from the brain, like for dreams there is NO EVIDENCE. And like I said, please read all our posts before you make answers. If everyone do like you there is no end to this topic.

Placebo effect don't contradict what I say. For exemple if you have head pain and think that a glass of watter will make you feel better, or even heal you, it will. It is the power of your mind, your beliefs. And your mind and your beliefs are not created by the brain. The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

StephL... you're happy just because he repeated the commun belief about dreams ? You wanted to hear what you already believe ? You see what you want to see? When you're really a truth seeker you don't act like you do.
For exemple there is people in this thread who don't specialy agree with me... but at last they think... Like Sageus for exemple. They don't pretend Knowing something when even in scence there is no certainity.

Did you know that in quantum physics there is an experience that shows that the observer affects the result of the experience ? So even in science you can see only what you are prepared to see. The experience is influenced by the observer. Scientists observing atoms is in fact atoms observing themselves. You can see only what you believe.

PS: for all new people reading this thread please read all answers, respect people who have given their opinion, don't just urge to make answers for your ego. I think I said all I have to say about this, the people who try to understand will understand and those who want to see their own beliefs will ignore all the valuable informations. Thanks

Originally Posted by astralboy

Lol Zoth...
You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.
You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.
And thoughts don't originate from the brain, like for dreams there is NO EVIDENCE. And like I said, please read all our posts before you make answers. If everyone do like you there is no end to this topic.

Placebo effect don't contradict what I say. For exemple if you have head pain and think that a glass of watter will make you feel better, or even heal you, it will. It is the power of your mind, your beliefs. And your mind and your beliefs are not created by the brain. The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

StephL... you're happy just because he repeated the commun belief about dreams ? You wanted to hear what you already believe ? You see what you want to see? When you're really a truth seeker you don't act like you do.
For exemple there is people in this thread who don't specialy agree with me... but at last they think... Like Sageus for exemple. They don't pretend Knowing something when even in scence there is no certainity.

Did you know that in quantum physics there is an experience that shows that the observer affects the result of the experience ? So even in science you can see only what you are prepared to see. The experience is influenced by the observer. Scientists observing atoms is in fact atoms observing themselves. You can see only what you believe.

PS: for all new people reading this thread please read all answers, respect people who have given their opinion, don't just urge to make answers for your ego. I think I said all I have to say about this, the people who try to understand will understand and those who want to see their own beliefs will ignore all the valuable informations. Thanks

I'll repeat what I said earlier.

Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is the systematic organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe that are rational and can be reliably applied.

ipso facto, your peculiar belief that "science" makes mistakes is wrong. If some sceintist says something is impossible, it's the scientists fault not scientific method. The 'belief' in science is in no way endorsed by the scientific method itself.

dutchraptor

What you say is very beautiful in theory... but scientist are humans and they have beliefs and egos. For some of them, they can't believe or imagine something indepedant of the brain, so they will ignore all experiences of so much people and consider this as imagination. But what is sure it is that science is so much ignorant about so much important things. Our science is the result of scientists ... so what you call science can be not true. What they say today can be wrong tomorrow. It look like you consider as something "all knowing" or something like "god"... Never forget that scientists are humans who have beliefs (limited ones) others are more open and there is scientist even who can agree with what I say. But the fact is undeniable... There is no evidence that the mind and dreams originate in the physical brain. When something is undeniable like "The earh is not flat" you can't argue.

Some of scientists are atheist for exemple, and they say that there is no god, and they take it as a fact. But when you are really scientific you can't say "there is no god", or even "there is god". There is no Evidence. It is a belief. Like I said ... So much things are unknown to science, but very few people say it. And when something is unknown or when we don't know... we should be neutral.

Originally Posted by astralboy

dutchraptor

What you say is very beautiful in theory... but scientist are humans and they have beliefs and egos. For some of them, they can't believe or imagine something indepedant of the brain, so they will ignore all experiences of so much people and consider this as imagination. But what is sure it is that science is so much ignorant about so much important things. Our science is the result of scientists ... so what you call science can be not true. What they say today can be wrong tomorrow. It look like you consider as something "all knowing" or something like "god"... Never forget that scientists are humans who have beliefs (limited ones) others are more open and there is scientist even who can agree with what I say. But the fact is undeniable... There is no evidence that the mind and dreams originate in the physical brain. When something is undeniable like "The earh is not flat" you can't argue.

Some of scientists are atheist for exemple, and they say that there is no god, and they take it as a fact. But when you are really scientific you can't say "there is no god", or even "there is god". There is no Evidence. It is a belief. Like I said ... So much things are unknown to science, but very few people say it. And when something is unknown or when we don't know... we should be neutral.

aaaaand you forgot about peer reviewed studies. The scientific community created peer reviewed studies precisely for that reason. If a scientist can't provide strong evidence than what he says isn't accepted. Everything is influenced to an extent by a humans own opinions, but not near as much as you are making it out to be.

Let me give you an example. When we discovered the first evidence of the higgs boson back in 2011, no one was ever told, because the 99.995 percent accuracy they achieved had to be refined, and refined, and then refined again. In the start of 2012 the lhc had logged over 300 trillion proton collisions, and it still took six months before they were sure of the higgs existence. They settled for 1 in 3.5 million chance of error. 8000 scientists worked together to achieve that. The current human brain project, and the human genome project have a combined workforce of somewhere around that number too. If you think some odd biased opinions are going skew the result of projects like these (the ones that produce the massive results) then you are severely delusional.

So where is that study ? Are you saying that science KNOWS what is mind, what is a dream, what is life, what is universe, what is awareness. Or they pretend to know it? Or They know a little bit?
Sorry but I doubt that they KNOW all these things. They may observe effects on the brain (in the case of dreams)... But they can't say nothing more.
I even doubt the evolution theory, the big bang theory, the "everything is meaningless" theory, the "everything is accident, or chance" theory. You seem like an religious, you just accept blindly what the "all knowing science" tells you. You seem that for you science is God, even if there is no evidence. In "scientific" theories there is often a word "Coincidence, Chance or accident".

Like I said science is really cool! But when you make conclusions without enough evidences it is not science.
If science knew all about life, universe, mind... believe me This world would be a much better place.
The day science will KNOW what dreams or mind is this thread will be just... Impossible. Because when you have a real evidence it is impossible to argue against it.

Originally Posted by astralboy

So where is that study ? Are you saying that science KNOWS what is mind, what is a dream, what is life, what is universe, what is awareness. Or they pretend to know it? Or They know a little bit?
Sorry but I doubt that they KNOW all these things. They may observe effects on the brain (in the case of dreams)... But they can't say nothing more.
I even doubt the evolution theory, the big bang theory, the "everything is meaningless" theory, the "everything is accident, or chance" theory. You seem like an religious, you just accept blindly what the "all knowing science" tells you. You seem that for you science is God, even if there is no evidence. In "scientific" theories there is often a word "Coincidence, Chance or accident".

Science provides rationally backed up statistics, it's up to you to choose which statistical inference method you use. Frankly I don't care, fact is science only gave us the evidence, It's up to us how we interpret that. No one asked you to follow Bayesian or sequential statistics etc, most people do, if you want to reject everything that's fine, just don't push it on the us.

Originally Posted by astralboy

Like I said science is really cool! But when you make conclusions without enough evidences it is not science.
If science knew all about life, universe, mind... believe me This world would be a much better place.
The day science will KNOW what dreams or mind is this thread will be just... Impossible. Because when you have a real evidence it is impossible to argue against it.

Here is where it get's great. The hypocrite is finally emerging, an entire thread arguing how "science" deals only in absolutes and you go and say that something is impossible.

StephL. To start with, no harm done I got to give you creeds for your vast research about.. well everything

It's a lot of information going on here right now, so feel it a bit much to take everything in consideration. I just want to make clear that Im a friend of logic as it is, wich in the end will be just logic. And the thing with my idea that there is a scientific logic reasoning and that there is a philosophical logic, was only a explanation to try to define in wich way one could end up, if one shose to use logic in a more restricted way. So my use of logic will simply be everything I learn, and that will not exclude science in any way what so ever.

And a true scientist - following the scientific method - will not categorically oppose a view a priori - he will challenge it and go about the project to falsify a hypothesis.

Yeah, as long as the tought may go in the terms of scientific understanding, so totally free imagination beyound scientific understanding, is not a accepted thing to do here. So then ones logic will not be as free as it could be unforunatly. So a scientist is able to apply imagination in he's theories. So what people will call a encounter with a ghost if they experience it, would immediately be something else "natural" in a true scientists imagination.

If science were bound to their current proofs – it could go home, so to speak!

Thats the way I see science work, they got to follow the rule of physics, and that limits science to the rule of physics. The limit for science is in my opinion and probably for you to, faaar from THE limit. But It's easy to see that science got a limit if you compare science to free imagination.

But - people are people - and show me an old philosopher, esp. a reknown one - for whom in his later age at least did not apply something similar to Clarke´s first law..

I cant do that. Because philosophy got no limits. So that possibility that an old philosopher have used Clarke´s first law.. could be true. But if it is, do I not know. So I would just claim that as possibility.

Even if I have not heard about Arthur C. Clarke before. He's 3 laws, seems very open-minded to me indeed. Good stuff!

What you are describing here - and nicely, I find - is "heuristics".
A word which I find useful to know, out of the load of "philosophical terminology"..

Good research there stephL. I think I will fit in pretty good in that category

I will make a restatement on define the word logic since I did only describe it in the way I use to use it. I would like to define the word logic as: Everything. because of it's limitlessness. So this means that what makes logic to one, could be unlogic to another.

It is not possible for a human (in my world-view ..) to be free of bias - hence I agree with you - and always thought so.

unless you get free from tought, or if you did have acces to all information there is, I would say. But I really do share your opinion in that this would be an overall truth.


I think there might be some backfireing here

Information is never without medium, never pure - it and gets lost.
But it is definitively not "energy" either.

+

rule nr 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

From the Skeptoid's text:

"in Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on"

This might look like a legit when you read a whole text, but if you try to be legit/open-minded. This is things that matters alot in my opinion. Because if you "MOST of these la la laa.." then it means that you dont take all your disapproval in consideration. If you dont find any evidence at ALL, then youre most likely to claim that "ALL of these paranormal phenomena rely on.. etc etc" according on my experience. So when you say "most of these paranormal phenomena rely on" then it's very likely that youre not to shore on what you think you know. So in my book, this seems like a bias aproach, and that's not entierly legit, even if there is mostly, many really good advices in there.

And to explain my self in my view of the claim to be open-minded, my aproach of paranormal things is this kind of aproach that's described in Skeptoid's text. So I dont see anything wrong with the overall aproach he's/she's refering to. But my analys of this skeptoid's text make my red-flags go off, because of that BIG mistake in my opinion. Another of my view of paranormal things, is that if I took a guess in how many fake/not very likely claims there is in this paranormal occurrences that I have get my hands on. Then I would probably say that something like 90% of all that I seen, is fake/not very likely to be true. Wich means that 10% is stuff that I've not being able to debunk in a sound sceptic aproach.

Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.

My question to that would spontanesly be. Did he ever had the chance to see a impossible paranormal occurens then?? I would not been here discussing this paranormal things if I never had the chance to stumble on som very twisted paranormal events either!

Well - I find the term philosophical misapplied here.
The example - and yeah - sorry for being bitchy.. - would for me rather fall into the category psychology - and psychology on a level, which is very close in motivational framework, with which evolution has also equipped our animal-friends - just like us.
So - it really rather belongs in the realm of neurobiology based motivational/behavioural explanations.
I thought, it would not really get at, what you are trying to get at.

No your not bitchy at all, I like that there is a good "fight" in discussions, because that's what makes one think. So I cant claim that this is the best possible example there is But If you do find this example I come up with, not to good. Then one either understood the example, or one might not get it at all. So I dont know in what case you might claim youreself to be in. The only way for me to know that you got the idea in this example. Is that you improve the example in such a way that it makes more sense to you, then it is right now.

What exactly - not nastily asked - I am really unsure, what statement of his you refer to?
Could you please give me the whole statement together, how you want it understood?
I do not understand it like this.

Yeah sorry, I didn't explain enough what Astralboy point really was. But the thing his refered to, was that one's ego is the one who makes us in to the personalitys we are, and the ego also protect us, but at the same time, the ego mess things up alot. And one's ego is what causing pshycological pain in the first place. So with no ego, we would "wake up from the dream", and see the world as it really is. So when the ego has died, there is what we call enlightenment instead.

There is so much people who have "experience out of body" and see later that what they saw was real.*

Who said that?

The above quote might grasp, why on a forum like ours this topic sort of has to arise and with an earnestness, too.

We really should get at such study material, as dutchraptor was mentioning earlier - that little evidence, which has not been proven bogus, irrelevantly of intentional or just in enthusiasm, which he referred to.

Sooner or later I will - but maybe really later - does not seem an easy search-project - not even one I would enjoy..
Also later maybe the other post, not the "leisure" now..

But if there really were so many reports of this, then surely I would by now have come across one of them?
NOT "a friend of mine told me, or just your experience - "you" (whoever) can tell us anything, and we do not know, if you say the truth or not.
It must be a study with witnesses, who are completely neutral and premises so, that they were without ambiguity.
I know of several such endeavours - where only in repetition there was uncovered a fraud and "other stuff".
The truth in that sense, if you really can attain information, which would not been accessible in any other physical way.

That is what the quote is about, isn´t it?


*I got it from a quote in a post-draft next tab over - don´t know now, who that refers to - I find it might be something really fitting for discussing this topic

Originally Posted by StephL

But if there really were so many reports of this, then surely I would by now have come across one of them?

Did you ever hear of the USA, CIA's "Remote Viewing" program?

Abstract:
"In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

Excerpt:
"Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood." H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

Full report here: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pa...itiatedRV.html

You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.

Your fallacies keep pilling up...the fact that I've read all the posts or not doesn't eliminate the incongruities of your reasoning, thus my line of thought may still be completely valid. Actually, many of this conversation has been dragged of course with your attempts to add complexity to simple matters.

You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.

Of course there is....Besides, it's already established how memories are stored: they are essentially loads of clusters of neurons scattered throughout the brain, which explains why the removal of huge chunks of brain tissue can still leave many memories intact. Long-term potentiation is another component that adds up to the evidence.

Besides, you (without realizing) contradict yourself: if you say the brain is a receptor, then how come memories are not stored in the brain? So you see an image of a car, it goes out of your brain to someplace else, then when you remind yourself of the car, it's because the memory went back in? That makes zero sense.

The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

And your thoughts are able to be formed because.....oh wait, because you have a brain. I admit that philosophy isn't dead, but philosophy that doesn't consider the advances in neuroscience is a useless philosophy. If thoughts are directed by you and not your brain, how come biomedical treatment is effective against mental illness? Why can't you "think yourself out" of the problem? How come PTSD is related to memory processing issues if the memories are not in the brain? You'd be surprised how unconscious processing can reveal that a lot of our actions and thoughts are not decided by us.

respect people who have given their opinion

I do respect your opinion. I just think it has numerous flaws, and that in this discussion you've proven for several times that you're not seeking the truth, you're seeking comfort.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I'll repeat what I said earlier. "Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is the systematic organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe that are rational and can be reliably applied."

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

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.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

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

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

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

"Both" sounds right, but I'm going to have to think that question over... maybe sleep on it.

N.

First of all - there is a great thread on science of lucid dreaming: http://www.dreamviews.com/lucid-drea...ml#post2057088

Could well be, you find it interesting, all and anybody - and there is a nice little video of how the brain goes about some interesting things as well.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Did you ever hear of the USA, CIA's "Remote Viewing" program?

Abstract:
"In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

Excerpt:
"Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood."[/B] H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

Full report here: CIA-Initiated RV Program at SRI

Thank you Nailler - you deliver the goods, okaay.
smile.gif

Reads more interestingly than I had expected - these would be the kind of sources, to dig into.
But there should be openly accessible studies - shouldn´t there?


But the above statement of your excerpt says exactly nothing, unfortunately - "ambiguities? That is not what we asked for!
And "appear to provide" - why not simply "provide"?
Because there is no definite, positive "evidence". Otherwise it would be "provided" - don´t you think?

Unfortunately - for us on here this is worthless anyway and in the first place - since we are not allowed true access to the information:

Since details concerning the site's mission in general, and evaluation of the remote viewing test in particular, remain highly classified to this day, all that can be said is that interest in the client community was heightened considerably following this exercise.

I mean CIA - don´t know, what I should think - maybe that is propaganda to "leak" something like this themselves.
Wouldn´t you want the world to believe America has PSI super-soldiers and agents?
It could even be considered a duty for some people to try this trick with doing as if the CIA could do, and prove remote-viewing, and what not else.
But of course that is TOP-SECRET

Top Secret is not Evidence. Full stop.

This should suffice to not let the above material pass our scepticism - at least it can´t get past mine - but good start.



Super post, Zoth - again!
smile.gif

Originally Posted by astralboy

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Besides, you (without realizing) contradict yourself: if you say the brain is a receptor, then how come memories are not stored in the brain? So you see an image of a car, it goes out of your brain to someplace else, then when you remind yourself of the car, it's because the memory went back in? (from only being in the spirit going back into the brain)
That makes zero sense.

Indeed - please clarify - where are memories - and why are they not in the brain, astralboy?


If I were a dualist now, I would say - the information does go from the brain to the spirit, but is also stored in the brain, and can vice versa be accessed.

But you, astralboy see it differently - see above.
Why info to brain to spirit and back to brain - if the brain has the capacity, which it does - it has it in between steps - why not have the info stay in the brain - makes sense - like it does evidently come out of you over the brain later again, or not?

Why does the spirit take the memory out of the brain, so that it is no longer in the brain, like you pose, astralboy?
And why does the spirit have to put the information back into the brain again, before further proceedings with that information can take place?

Throwing about the "I" and the "Ego" and "Spirit" etc. is not very informative.

How I really see this is - for a start - the eyes are an actual part of the brain - so the brain acts as a direct receptor for light, and the brain is also an actor upon itself, if you will.

What we talk about, I think, is an executive function of the brain - a more and more sophisticated self-reflective superstructure built over evolution on the basis of learning and psychology of animals.
The Meta-Consciousness tested with the help of LDers - see link at the top of this post.

The brain projects a point of personal view onto the inner canvas.
'We' are concerted wave phenomena in time and neuronal matter.
If you wanted to have it sound more nice ..


Brain-matter - best stuff around for as far out as we know!!
Thumbs2.gif

Originally Posted by Zoth

..You'd be surprised how unconscious processing can reveal that a lot of our actions and thoughts are not decided by us.

Oh yes - and Wolf Singer is a great source for such things.
He has done amazing research and review-work in Germany - on consciousness.

Originally Posted by Zoth

I do respect your opinion. I just think it has numerous flaws, and that in this discussion you've proven for several times that you're not seeking the truth, you're seeking comfort.

I fully agree with you.

Originally Posted by Nailler

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

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.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

Scientists are people, and indeed - the community had some bumpy paradigm-shifts in scientific history - I have brought the very same statement about them being "people" before and given Clarke´s 3 laws - once more:
#1 "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

For various reasons - different stories - but that there are scientists who are short-sighted with their age and personality is not an argument against the scientific method.

And - I thought there goes a funny end-note - but - I am afraid, we will not only from Astralboy but from you as well hear of Creationism and I loathe this topic sometimes - I promise I will behave, though ..
Also the denial of man made climate change - I will have to make some use of Sceptoid.com again I feel..
But maybe on another thread - and not this one, please?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Originally Posted by Nailler

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

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.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

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

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


Edit: And because it is simply great:




And Edit: DreamyBear - I will answer you a bit later..smile.gif