Thread: Rem=dream?

yes i do. well we got to get rid of our fraudien views someday or we have to grow up and abandom magical thinking for hard scientific evidence.

What?! If you are saying that Freud asserted that dreaming is 'magical' and that he ignored empirical evidence, then you are ignorant of two things: 1) Ignorant of what Freud researched (he researched the interpretation of dreams not, specifically, the neurology of dreams. (They did not even have MRI's, so how could he have? MRI's were invented and introduced in 1973 and Freud died in 1939, so of course he has no way of showing empirical evidence for dreams and that is why he did not). 2) That you think I am quoting incompetent people. Even though who are basing their facts that the locus of dreams are not the occipital but elsewhere.

Now I will let an immense amount of research do the talking for me.

From the Society of Neuroscience.

When people sleep, they experience periods of Rapid Eye Movement. During this stage, which is associated with dreaming, the brain becomes very active. REM sleep and dreaming are triggered by the pons and neighboring structures in the brainstem. The pons sends signals to the thalamus and the cerebral cortex -- which is responsible for most cognitive activities. The pons also sends signals to shut off the neurons in the spinal cord.

From: http://www.sfn.org/index.cfm?pagename=brai...efings_rEMSleep

Take note that the occipital lobe has no association with the neurology of actual dreaming.

From the Centre for Neuroskills and Traumatic Brain Injury.

[quote]Gastaut and Collomb (1954) were the first to draw attention to hyposexuality after specific inquiry in 36 patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. More than two-thirds showed marked diminution or absence of interest, appetite or sexual activity. Other forms of focal and generalized epilepsy appeared to be unassociated with such problems. There was often a remarkable lack of sexual curiosity, fantasies or erotic dreams, yet little to suggest inhibition since the patients talked easily and without reserve about such matters. Indeed they appeared to be quite indifferent about the subject.[/b]

From: http://www.neuroskills.com/tbi/sex-discussion.shtml

Note that the lack of dreams is from temporal lobe damage, not occipital lobe.

From the Journal of Neuroscience.

Ponto-geniculo-occipital (PGO) waves are absent in NREM sleep and can be recorded in wake in association with a startle response. In constrast, clusters of PGO waves can be recorded in the brain stem, thalamus, cortex, and some subcortical structures during REM sleep.

Notice that [b]the occipital lobe holds no place in the figure to illustrate the neurology of dreaming[b]!

From: http://www.jneuroscie.org & http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/reprint/10/2/...ourcetype=HWCIT

From CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Phasic events, termed ponto-geniculo-occipital potentials, appear in the brainstem, thalamus and cerebral cortex during rapid eye movement sleep. In the cat, the species of choice for ponto-geniculo-occipital studies, these field potentials are usually recorded from the lateral geniculate thalamic nucleus and visual cortex. However, the fact that brainstem cholinergic neurons play a crucial role in the transfer of ponto-geniculo-occipital potentials to the thalamus,[13,16,23] coupled with the evidence that mesopontine tegmental neurons project to virtually all thalamic nuclei,[14,24] together explain why ponto-geniculo-occipital potentials are recorded over widespread territories, beyond the visual thalamo-cortical system

From: http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3040788

Oh, but I know what you're thinking now, "Ponto-geniculo-occipital! It says occipital! Therefore, occipital lobe is primary source for dreaming!"

From Science Magazine.

Ponto-geniculo-occipital (PGO) burst neurons: correlative evidence for neuronal generators of PGO waves
RW McCarley, JP Nelson, and JA Hobson

A newly discovered class of neurons, ponto-geniculo-occipital (PGO) burst neurons, has PGO wave relationships of phase-leading, stereotyped discharge bursts, and the highest reported discharge specificity and coherence; these neurons thus fulfill correlative criteria for output generator neurons for PGO waves. The PGO burst neurons are recorded in a discrete dorsal brainstem area in apposition to the brachium conjunctivum.

From: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/201/4352/269

Notice absolutely no centrality of PGO waves in the occipital lobe as they are neurons!

One more article, just to get the point across:

From the University of Washington.

Dreaming occurs during REM sleep, the "paradoxical" sleep stage. Curiously, the ascending acetylcholinergic system actually turns on - it is as though the brain wakes up internally. Yet for some reason the person remains unconscious and unaware. Dreams generally do not make it to conscious memory unless the dreamer is awakened from the dream itself.

How is it that the cholinergic system can be on and the sleeper still unconscious? The answer probably lies in other neurotransmitters and nuclei of the rostral pons. The dorsal raphe nuclei, a cluster of serotonergic cells, and the locus ceruleus, a group of noradrenergic neurons, also play a role in sleep. They may help to keep consciousness suppressed during dreaming.


One of the striking things about REM sleep is the absolute stillness of the body. During most stages of sleep we toss and turn, but in REM sleep only the eye muscles twitch (and, for some unknown reason, the middle ear muscles&#33. This is due largely to a system of descending inhibition. Dreaming turns on a group of cells in the medulla that descend down the spinal cord and inhibit motor activity. Very specific lesions of these cells (a rare event) lead to a phenomenon called "violent sleeping", where the dreamer physically acts out his or her dreams. This is different from sleepwalking, which usually does not occur during REM sleep.

From: http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/sleep.html

Notice that there is no reference to the occipital lobe as dreaming is the result of a various neighboring organs around the brain stem.

I am not convinced this is enough for you. Here is more:

From the American Journal of Psychiatry.

Second, forebrain activity (which can have mental correlates) is crucial to the instigation and maintenance of dreaming sleep

From: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/conten...ourcetype=HWCIT

From the Journal of Neuroscience..again



Parts circled in red is the occipital lobe......... notice they are irrelevant and have no activity.

Oh but perhaps I made a mistake on where the occipital lobe is.



From some random image I googled (coicidentally from Neuroskills.com...) because it does not matter which image you pick, they all show the same area as the occipital lobe.

From some random site I googled... post-gazette.com, lol

Neuroimaging studies show that the part of the brain that is responsible for short-term, or working, memory -- the prefrontal cortex -- is largely inactive during REM sleep.

During the day, he explained, a person's experiences are stored in an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus, which is active during REM sleep, replays these episodic memories before they are translated into long-term memories stored in the brain's cortex.

From: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03341/248272.stm

Note that if you search the post, the word 'occipital' is not even mentioned.

Not enough to convince you? I have 5972 articles in just one database that can argue this empirical, not dogmatic or 'magical' fact.

One last point, when I asked my professor if the occipital lobe is required for dreaming, he replied that it is absolutely necessary to revisualize it but as for the function of unconcious dreams, he said that, the occipital lobe is as necessary for dreaming about as much as you need your eyes to imagine what a truck looks like.

I hope I have been enlightening.

Edit: Quotes are screwing up for me to.

~

Originally Posted by Keeper;

can you proove that magic dosn't exist?

For all you know it is just a branch of physics
[/b]

lol.

Well, if you are saying this to argue in conjunction with becomingagodo, then let us try this logic:

Magic is physics
Physics is hard evidence
We can only trust hard evidence
Magic is not hard evidence
Therefore, physics is not hard evidence
Therefore, we can not trust hard evidence
- Do you see the problem?

Or, if we use this point of view for speculation. Then let us try this:

We do not know what physics is
Physics could be magic
We do not know what magic is
Dreaming could be magic or physics
We do not know what dreaming is
- We are left with pure speculation and no concrete point then.

We could also go so far as to, "Do you even know what knowing is? How can you know that you know something when the only reason you know something is because you rely on the idea that everything in nature reflects uniformity; saying that everything does what it has done in the past. Therefore, we only know that we know things because we have no experience of these things showing otherwise."

Let us use a counter-example then:
- I know that there is such thing as a million dollars
- I have never seen a million dollars
Therefore, I do not have an empirical argument as I have never seen a million dollars and still assert that it exists.

Furthermore, we could go so far as to say:
- The only reason we believe that 1+1 always equals 2 is because we have never had the experience or recordings of 1+1 equalling something else.

Sophomoric? Stupid? Perhaps so. Hence we use Ockham's razor and make this entire post of mine here a waste of time. Although, I find it much more interesting..

Edit: Hey, where did that post go..?

~

ok onus then if that all true then why does the woman not dream when only the occipital lobe was damaged and the neurologist made sure that her visulization and memory our perfect so the argument that she cant remeber does not come in. the point is this study proves that without occiptial lobe dreaming is not possible and that it not linked to REM if you look up then your see lots of links showing that you can perfectly dream during non REM phase. once you get down to hard evidence their are many experiment that show you dream all night and that dreams have nothing to do with REM.

WHERE exactly do dreams come from? Judging by the intriguing case of a stroke victim who lost her ability to dream, they originate deep in the back of the brain, in a region responsible for vision. The study, which is the first to look in detail at a non-dreamer, raises intriguing questions about the connection between dreams, sleep and our mental abilities.

Soon after her stroke, the 73-year-old woman reported an incredibly vivid hallucination, and then had no dreams at all for three months, recovering only very limited dreaming after that. In brain scans, Claudio Bassetti and Matthias Bischof, neurologists at the University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland, found damage to both sides of a small part of the visual, or occipital, cortex (Annals of Neurology, vol 56, p 1).

But being dreamless did not seem to hamper their patient. Two weeks after the stroke, the woman showed no signs of ...[/b]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-.../mg18324651.500
well you can listen to your professor or the facts it up to you.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

ok onus then if that all true then why does the woman not dream when only the occipital lobe was damaged and the neurologist made sure that her visulization and memory our perfect so the argument that she cant remeber does not come in. the point is this study proves that without occiptial lobe dreaming is not possible and that it not linked to REM if you look up then your see lots of links showing that you can perfectly dream during non REM phase. once you get down to hard evidence their are many experiment that show you dream all night and that dreams have nothing to do with REM.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-.../mg18324651.500
well you can listen to your professor or the facts it up to you.
[/b]

What?! Facts?! My last post made lengthy posts with MRI scans of people in dreaming states and electroencephalograms of people in dreaming states. How can you get more factual than that?! You're basing your entire argument on "www.newscientist.com" whereas mine is coming from the following:

University of Washington
Society for Neuroscience
Neuroskills: Centre for Traumatic Brain Injury (which had no report of this case)
American Psychological Association
Canadian Psychological Association
Journal of Neuroscience
Journal of Psychiatry
Journal of Neurosurgeory

But you say that all the above are not factual? On what grounds do you propose that?! What do I have to do to prove this to you? I have shown you an incredible amount of factual and empirical data that the occipital lobe plays absolutely no role. It is not even active during most of your sleep! This is because of the lack of monoamine neurotransmitter production - being none!

I am not stating anything of my own but only what these sources say and thusly, to disagree with them is to disagree with the major institutions globally recognized for their empirical data!

Edit: My professor has made extensive clinical research. To add to his qualifications, he was an assistant psychiatrist for Ernest Hemmingway and helped introduce classical conditioning to Anthony Burgess, author of "A Clockwork Orange." Who are you going to believe then? Some lousy magazine that is never referenced or recognized by any scholarly journals, or someone who has made publishments in these journals?

~

ok but anwser this if the woman has been tested from the neurologist in charge about the abillity to remeber dream and revisualize dreams and these were perfect then why does she not dream even thou she has normal REM phase. also why do people dreams outside REM phase too.

I reviewed your sources again.

Correct me if I am wrong that this is your primary source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin...609170/PDFSTART

Firstly, she reports having a dream three days after the stroke.

Secondly, she does have CWS, which includes topographagnosia (a complete disillusion of their surroundings), and incompetence in revisualization (which is the only way you remember how something looks like.. like your dreams).

Thirdly, they woke the patient up at the onset of REM sleep. So of course she will not report having dreams, they stopped her from entering REM sleep. They also woke her up 10-20 minutes after REM sleep and she reported no dreams, however this is not conclusive as this happens to many people everyday.

Fourthly, if you completely read the report, it ascribes that [i]she had vivid dreams that were reminiscient of "Lhermitte's peduncular hallucinosis".

Fifthly, they say again, "...partially damaged visual processing areas as responsible for the vivid dreaming..."

Sixthly, they purport that the inferior lingual gyrus plays a role in dreaming. It must be kept in mind that this dreaming is the revisualization of these dreams. To purpose otherwise is to say that they are asking her what her dreams are while she is asleep - which would be absolutley ridiculous and impossible.

Lastly, they conclude that, "existance of dream loss as distinct neuropsychological dysfunction after deep bilateral occipital lobe damage, in the absence of REM sleep changes."

~

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

ok but anwser this if the woman has been tested from the neurologist in charge about the abillity to remeber dream and revisualize dreams and these were perfect then why does she not dream even thou she has normal REM phase. also why do people dreams outside REM phase too.
[/b]

We can dream outside of REM sleep - I never argued that. I apologize if I made inclinations towards this.

~

I reviewed your sources again.

Correct me if I am wrong that this is your primary source: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/c...09170/PDFSTART [/b]

no i got my information from newscientist and the person who originally published the study.

It must be kept in mind that this dreaming is the revisualization of these dreams. To purpose otherwise is to say that they are asking her what her dreams are while she is asleep - which would be absolutley ridiculous and impossible.[/b]

yes but isnt all study of dream going to suffer from your point of revisualization of dreams.

she reports having a dream three days after the stroke.[/b]

yes but it wasnt a normal dream

she does have CWS, which includes topographagnosia (a complete disillusion of their surroundings), and incompetence in revisualization (which is the only way you remember how something looks like.. like your dreams). [/b]

i never said she has CWS and that particly wrong anyway because the person in the study of this disorder was consistant for two years of calling thinking her husband is his sister.

they woke the patient up at the onset of REM sleep. So of course she will not report having dreams, they stopped her from entering REM sleep. They also woke her up 10-20 minutes after REM sleep and she reported no dreams, however this is not conclusive as this happens to many people everyday.[/b]

before hand she reported that she remeber three dreams a week and i think the neurologist is competent enought to atleast do a sleep study correct. but i thought you said you dont need REM to dream so i dont know what wrong so the woman must be a lier and the neurologist who is incompetent.

Lastly, they conclude that, "existance of dream loss as distinct neuropsychological dysfunction after deep bilateral occipital lobe damage, in the absence of REM sleep changes."[/b]

sound alright to me

Dreams are sleep hallucinations, while hallucinations are waking dreams. Both hallucinations and dreams develop under the same conditions of dissociation. The nature of dreams and hallucinations are essentially the same. An isolated dissociated system of secondary sensory and representative elements predisposed to function become a wakened by a special peripheral stimulus or by a summation of series of stimulations and gives rise to hallucinations or dreams according to the general state of consciousness, waking or sleeping. The hallucination of the comparatively waking state stands out alone, it remains more or less isolated and becomes obliterated by the general inrushing flood of peripheral sensations and perceptions of the waking consciousness. The dream is made up of a series of hallucinations going sometimes to form a complicated hallucination expanded into a whole life history. From this standpoint we may say a hallucination is an abbreviated dream, while a dream is an expanded hallucination. [/b]

http://www.sidis.net/hallucination.htm
are you saying that dreams are essential this onus. to be fair we could argue for weeks where dreams come from so we should just drop it. but then you must agree that REM does not equal dreams as it has been reported in people who have no REM cycle and their dreams is normal.

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

http://www.sidis.net/hallucination.htm
are you saying that dreams are essential this onus. to be fair we could argue for weeks where dreams come from so we should just drop it. but then you must agree that REM does not equal dreams as it has been reported in people who have no REM cycle and their dreams is normal.
[/b]

Well yeah, we can dream in NREM periods but it is not nearly as commonly reported as REM dreams. Not too mention, NREM dreams are typically the highly emotional dreams, usually very brief, and wake the person up (the dreams we have when we have microsleep; dozing off, fainting, etc.).

One thing that is indisputed is that we do not know what regulates sleep. From this we can even derive that we do not even know why we dream. Ergo, many theories could be applicable and true. (Except people like Sylvia Browne... I will not accept that dreams are periods of astral travel and that sleep paralysis is my soul not adapting properly back into my body.... ridiculous).

You are right about that one point - "yes but isnt all study of dream going to suffer from your point of revisualization of dreams." This is the much heated argument I see in my psychology seminars - it is indisputed that dreams are only recollections - no one can tell you what they are dreaming of while they are dreaming. Thus we have many issues with this factor alone..

Drop the debate? I was actually enjoying it, lol. You have galvanized me to do a lot of research on the topic and the possibility of the inferior lingual gyrus' stimulation of NREM dreams. Occipital lobes, I am not so sure. One thing I will abide by is that there is more to dreams than these two lobal areas.

I certainly hope this thread is enlightening for those wanting information on the origins of dreams.. hell, this could even be archive material.. lol.

I will delve into NREM dream origins later today and bring my findings back later.

~

the right forum this should have been posted in beyound dreaming.

OK, here we go. I know you're not "insulting me" in that post of yours but you still managed to piss me off- and with an opening like the one I quoted above, I think I was always destined to be, pissed off, with you. I mean, how can a "reply post" belong in a seperate forum to the inspirator post? And how is the question of whether we only dream during R.E.M. cycles "beyond dreaming" you damned fool?

[/quote] since you did post here i like to say daen everything you said in the post is wrong.
Well a bigger point is if you dont follow science or neurology then your stuck with views similar to daen assumption because you read it on this forum or in a stupid lucid dreaming book.[/quote]

OK, you may "follow science or neurology" or you may not. What I can tell for sure, however, is that you do not follow English... or at least I know, I can't follow yours! Are you even talking to me?

"since you did post here i like to say daen everything you said in the post is wrong." I can just picture you walking around all day, everday saying, "Daen, everything you said in the post is wrong" seeing as I did post here. lol. Do your friends think you strange?

Secondly, Science at this point in history can still only measure what is measurable and "following Neurology" would be of little help to me either, as the brain plays only a small part in the dreaming process. The old Alchemists in their pursuit for spiritual truths analogised our three-part Being as a delicate balance between Sulphur, Salt and Murcury. Sulphur is Mind, Salt is Body and Mercury is Spirit/Soul. Too much Mind results in an acidic dryness and burning, only a pinch of salt is necessary but where it's really at is the Mercury/Soul. Mercury can appear solid and is very adaptable and flexible but can not be grasped.

Rest assured that all these parts are required in dreaming- not just your precious linear logic and APPROXIMATE scientific measurements... and indeed, the mercury is the most important part. If you don't believe me, just wait for ten years... then turn around and there will be no one with you, no friends or loved ones... and you'll strain that wonderful brain of yours and ask yourself (what ever you think THAT is) what did I do to drive them all away? You're Soul will probably try and provide you with an answer, but I predict that you still won't listen.

And thirdly, I am not "stuck" with the dreamviews I hold (pun-type thing intended), I have attained them through my own personal experience. Something a "scientist" or someone who apparently follows Science should be able to identify with. The difference between you and I, scientist and spiritualist, is that I KNOW that the experimental data I observe is SUBJECTIVE. Objectivity does not exist... you can not get outside the Tao to observe or know it from a state of seperatism... yes, even Science!

[/quote] off topic daen this not a insult but why do you believe somebody who says their can channel sprits but you cant believe some off the greatest mind like Einstien, Newton, Leonardo da vinchi because for somebody who say their interested in the universe i would trust a genius or someone with proof.
[/quote]

OK, again, this is a very poorly worded sentence/question thingy, but here goes.

I believe CERTAIN people who claim that they can channel non-physical entities because when i read something I am constantly asking whether it rings true for me or not. A lot of this is feeling and inuition (mercury), some of it is felt in the body and yes, I chuck some Sulphur in there to get things cooking too. Jane Roberts tells her whole journey of coming to be an active channel for Seth and she was was much more demanding and critical of the "proof" from herself than you could ever lucid dream to be! She has a huge following of enlightened readers who would similarly scoff at your "informed ignorance" if they reacted at all.

And when did i say i didn't respect any of your cliched examples of the great scientists? And when did Newton or Einstein EVER construct a theory or model to explain the unknowable depths of the "unconscious"? I adore Da Vinci, by the way.

I find the concept of there being more to "reality" than this physical one incredibly easy to believe, especially having had extensive experience with Lucid Dreaming and more limited experience (but increasingly more) with Astral rojection, not to mention Acid, Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, Philosphor's Stone and DMT. Before you read another dry text book, try some DMT you square, and stop being an annoying little pest. It is just a little step up (and a step down for the non-physical entities) to believe that someone here on Earth can Channel a Being from there, if both parties are willing and focused.

I would seriously try prying open that closed mind of yours if I were you. This hardly seems the forum for you.

Really. What can we absolutely know about the mysteries of Dreaming? Patterns, tendancies and the great generilisation of all time, "The Subconscious" can only explain the tip of the ice berg.

Oh, and i would not have arked up like this if you hadn't made the hideously ignorant and condescending comment, "evrything you said was wrong"... there is no right or wrong when it comes to someone elses opinion, understanding or experience. If you feel the need to shoot those things down then i would propose you taking a hard look at yourself, as opposed to others.

Peace out.

P.S. Good luck in becoming a God... I think you have a while to go.

Originally Posted by O

From this we can even derive that we do not even know why we dream. Ergo, many theories could be applicable and true. (Except people like Sylvia Browne... I will not accept that dreams are periods of astral travel and that sleep paralysis is my soul not adapting properly back into my body.... ridiculous). [/b]

I will have to check out this Sylvia Brown!

It's half funny and half tragic how insistently you guys look in the wrong places to learn.

*nods*

OK, you may "follow science or neurology" or you may not. What I can tell for sure, however, is that you do not follow English... or at least I know, I can't follow yours! Are you even talking to me? [/b]

i have dyslexia also some people says that because da vinchi adn einstein had dyslexia it forced their brain to think differently so enhanced their creativity.

I can just picture you walking around all day, everday saying, "Daen, everything you said in the post is wrong" seeing as I did post here.[/b]

i thought i had mental problems

Secondly, Science at this point in history can still only measure what is measurable and "following Neurology" would be of little help to me either, as the brain plays only a small part in the dreaming process. [/b]

assume that dreaming comes from magick where their is perfectly good scientific evidence that it comes from brain like the ones discussed by me and onus in this post.

Rest assured that all these parts are required in dreaming- not just your precious linear logic and APPROXIMATE scientific measurements... and indeed, the mercury is the most important part. If you don't believe me, just wait for ten years... then turn around and there will be no one with you, no friends or loved ones... and you'll strain that wonderful brain of yours and ask yourself (what ever you think THAT is) what did I do to drive them all away? You're Soul will probably try and provide you with an answer, but I predict that you still won't listen. [/b]

common a assumption again. your assume again that being overly persismitic make you cold and i will have no friend.

The difference between you and I, scientist and spiritualist, is that I KNOW that the experimental data I observe is SUBJECTIVE. Objectivity does not exist... you can not get outside the Tao to observe or know it from a state of seperatism... yes, even Science![/b]

no see science does not make assumption it test itself to see if it correct were spiritualist does not.

And when did i say i didn't respect any of your cliched examples of the great scientists? And when did Newton or Einstein EVER construct a theory or model to explain the unknowable depths of the "unconscious"? I adore Da Vinci, by the way.[/b]

Da Vinci dedicated himself to understanding the mysteries of nature, and his insightful contributions to science and technology were legendary. As the archetypal Renaissance man, Leonardo helped set an ignorant and superstitious world on a course of reason, science, learning, and tolerance. [/b]

http://www.dyslexiaonline.com/famous/famous.htm
see were it says he helped set a ignorant and syperstitous world on the course of reason, science.
Da vinchi is a scientist not a spiriturlist if you really adore him you will take a scientist stand point to life.

I find the concept of there being more to "reality" than this physical one incredibly easy to believe, especially having had extensive experience with Lucid Dreaming and more limited experience (but increasingly more) with Astral rojection, not to mention Acid, Mushrooms, Salvia Divinorum, Philosphor's Stone and DMT. Before you read another dry text book, try some DMT you square, and stop being an annoying little pest. It is just a little step up (and a step down for the non-physical entities) to believe that someone here on Earth can Channel a Being from there, if both parties are willing and focused. [/b]

see this would be the supersitious world that da vinchi would hate.

Oh, and i would not have arked up like this if you hadn't made the hideously ignorant and condescending comment, "evrything you said was wrong"... there is no right or wrong when it comes to someone elses opinion, understanding or experience. If you feel the need to shoot those things down then i would propose you taking a hard look at yourself, as opposed to others.[/b]

well you should have posted this on beyound dreaming. if your so open minded yourself you could hear the other side of the argument the one which proberly Da vinchi would be on calling you ignorant.

Holy crap! I don't know if it is your Dyslexia talking but your arguments are grossly obtuse and are only bearly worth this short reply. Life is not black and white... Da Vinci knew that, fool! You can't see the colours? And if you think that Da Vinci was not Spiritual then there is no point to speaking with you about anything... I have read his entire journals and heard everything he has written on both Science and Spirituality (what he reffered to as God). Do you really think that after his long and intimate relationship with Nature he would ever question the idea that there is something bigger than us? If it was one thing his studies (and all of your other scientists' studies) proved was that not only was there a higher, intelligent designer, but that that Enitity (God/ess, Universe, Tao, whatever) is utterly UNKNOWABLE, PERFECT and even INCONCIEVABLE.

Here. Visualise this:

It's the beginning of time... what does it look like?

You shouldn't be able to answer that. Now. What happened before this "beginning"? Huh? How can there be something before a beginning?

There had to be? Hadn't there? If there wasn't something before hand, then the beginning came out of nothing. How does Science tell you shit about that? Big Bang... Big Bullshit. Even if there were just gasses and energy around before the "world" began... who put them there.

OK. By now, you should really be re-considering your stance on the "Godless Universe". But lots of Scientists (as there are many wonderful, intelligent and creative scientists out there) will admit to believing in a higher power, it's just something they haven't been able to experiment on yet. The real BRAIN buster is trying to think about what came before "God".

So, God made all 'this' but who made God? And if He made God, then who made Him? It goes on. If you THINK of the answer to these ultimate paradoxes then you really are wrong. The mind can not concieve of anything greater than it's self- you are a shining example.

I guess this hasn't been short. And there's more. I have to respond to some of the ludicrous things you said (and I'm not talking about grammar or spelling, you are absolutely forgiven for that... I am sorry to hear of your Dyslexia, that would suck).

You said that I "assume that being overly persismitic make you cold and i will have no friend". What I said was that denying your Soul or any Spirit will dry out your friend source. And you said it yourself, "OVERLY pessamistic" So if pessimism was ever good, being "overly" so would be bad, right? Pessimism is never good, incidentally (in my opinion)... I often say, "Pessimism is a disease and Limitations are the symptoms."

You also said, "science does not make assumption it test itself to see if it correct were spiritualist does not." Both Science and Spirituality at their zeniths rely on EXPERIENCIAL data. I said that before.

And... "Da vinchi is a scientist not a spiriturlist if you really adore him you will take a scientist stand point to life."

As I said, he was both. Even if he was a hard-nosed, matter matters scientist like Newton or Descartes, I would not just adopt his "stand point in life". Be yourself, bitch.

Love,

Rob.

P.S. "well you should have posted this on beyound dreaming. if your so open minded yourself you could hear the other side of the argument the one which proberly Da vinchi would be on calling you ignorant."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

And if you think that Da Vinci was not Spiritual then there is no point to speaking with you about anything... I have read his entire journals and heard everything he has written on both Science and Spirituality (what he reffered to as God). [/b]

It was during these years that Leonardo hit his stride, reaching new heights of scientific and artistic achievement.[/b]

Leonardo produced a studies on loads of subjects, including nature, flying machines, geometry, mechanics, municipal construction, canals and architecture (designing everything from churches to fortresses). His studies from this period contain designs for advanced weapons, including a tank and other war vehicles, various combat devices, and submarines.[/b]

If you read earlier Leonardo da vinci philosphy of life is to study nature using science for example he perfected linear perspective by doing scientific experiment. All his invention our produced by observation on nature like birds gave him the idea of a flying machine theirfore he study the pattarn so he could invent his own flying machine. As said earlier he is not spirtual in fact he wanted people to go the other way to science and reason.

Da Vinci dedicated himself to understanding the mysteries of nature, and his insightful contributions to science and technology were legendary. As the archetypal Renaissance man, Leonardo helped set an ignorant and superstitious world on a course of reason, science, learning, and tolerance.[/b]

common read that he hated the superstitous world and believing in god is different then believing in ghost e.t.c. the point is he not spiritual he scientific or the renaissance man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci owning about five books on leonardo da vichi and going throught google i have not seen one bit that says he spirtual.

Do you really think that after his long and intimate relationship with Nature he would ever question the idea that there is something bigger than us? If it was one thing his studies (and all of your other scientists' studies) proved was that not only was there a higher, intelligent designer, but that that Enitity (God/ess, Universe, Tao, whatever) is utterly UNKNOWABLE, PERFECT and even INCONCIEVABLE.[/b]

Assumption again. see he just observed nature and described it and i think leonardo would not take the defeatist view that your never know and some people says that he did not believe in god because he was gay and at the time it would have mean he would go to hell in christian religion.

There had to be? Hadn't there? If there wasn't something before hand, then the beginning came out of nothing. How does Science tell you shit about that? Big Bang... Big Bullshit. Even if there were just gasses and energy around before the "world" began... who put them there. [/b]

see science is not about telling you how something is it about taking observation the universe is expanding and then conclude that some time in the pass everthing was one and then calling that the big bang. if leonardo da vichi was around today he would proberly believe in big bang.

What I said was that denying your Soul or any Spirit will dry out your friend source. And you said it yourself, "OVERLY pessamistic" So if pessimism was ever good, being "overly" so would be bad, right? Pessimism is never good, incidentally (in my opinion)... I often say, "Pessimism is a disease and Limitations are the symptoms." [/b]

Well their are people that have got IQ over 90.

"There will be seen on the earth animals which constantly fight among themselves, inflicting great harm and frequently death on each other. Their enmity will know no bounds; their savage members will fell a great part of the trees in the vast forests of the world; and after they gorge themselves, they will continue to feed on their desire to inflict death and suffering and sorrow and fear and flight on all living creatures. Through their measureless pride they will seek to raise themselves to heaven, but the excessive weight of their members will hold them fast to the earth. Nothing will remain on the earth or under the earth and water that is not pursued, chased down, or destroyed; and it will be chased from country to country. Their bodies will be the grave and passageway of all the living bodies which they have killed.
O world, why do you not open and hurl into the deep clefts of your abysses and caverns and no longer show to heaven such cruel and heartless monsters?" (78)[/b]

See leonardo da vichi is proberly one of the most pessimistic person who has ever lived. This also goes against the leonardo see how nice the universe is so i can make up assumption of what he believes in.

Both Science and Spirituality at their zeniths rely on EXPERIENCIAL data[/b]

Science is the description of phenomena and the formulation of their relations. Science describes facts and formulates their relations in laws. The task of science is first to formulate facts belonging to the same type, and then to generalize them, that is to express their general relationship by one comprehensive formula, in spite of the many individual variations in the phenomena. Thus in geometry, possibly the most ancient of all sciences, many isolated and important facts were already known to the semi-civilized nations of antiquity, but it required the rationalizing spirit of the Greek mind to classify and generalize the facts into theorems, the laws of space. Many important properties of the right-angled triangle, for instance, were already known to the ancient Chaldeans and Egyptians. They knew that if in a right-angled triangle the two sides are respectively three and four, the hypotenuse must be five and so on; that is, they knew only concrete facts, but what they lacked was just the scientific side. It required a Pythagoras to discover that in all right-angled triangles the sum of the squares of the two sides is equal to the square of the third. No matter what the size of the triangle be, no matter how different in length its sides are, once the triangle be of the same type, namely right-angular, the same general relationship must obtain.

To take an illustration from physics. Falling bodies form one type of movement. Now the bodies themselves may be different in kind, in nature, may be of various material, may differ widely in structure, weight, and shape, and still, since they all belong to the same type of motion, they are, in spite of their manifold diversity, expressed in one general formula, in one law, namely, that the spaces traversed are proportional to the square of times.[/b]

the point is the science test itself by doing scientific experiment then find a law test that then formulate it. see spirtually cant be tested like the notion of god see it neer impossible to scientifically test so then it not science it something else.

As I said, he was both. Even if he was a hard-nosed, matter matters scientist like Newton or Descartes, I would not just adopt his "stand point in life". Be yourself, bitch.[/b]

he isnt both he a sciencitist get over it. be yourself okay tell me one idea of yours that is original belife in god belife in the stupid spritual belife. see i might not be original as you say but at least i not ignorant because i know that

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates[/b]

The only thing you seem to be able to do is assume stuff. Well to the comment be yourself bitch i responced by saying dont be ignorant.

You guys are going head to head and it's a beautiful thing to see knowledge expressed on this level, but Wow this subject has went waaayyy off topic. Kinda reminds me of when I post. Sometimes they just take a turn like that. That's the beauty of Forums. You start at a particular topic talking about cars and when it ends you're probably talking about how Donald Trump made his first Million.

how did donald trump make his first million? lol

Originally Posted by Daen

Holy crap! I don't know if it is your Dyslexia talking but your arguments are grossly obtuse and are only bearly worth this short reply. Life is not black and white... Da Vinci knew that, fool! You can't see the colours? And if you think that Da Vinci was not Spiritual then there is no point to speaking with you about anything... I have read his entire journals and heard everything he has written on both Science and Spirituality (what he reffered to as God). Do you really think that after his long and intimate relationship with Nature he would ever question the idea that there is something bigger than us? If it was one thing his studies (and all of your other scientists' studies) proved was that not only was there a higher, intelligent designer, but that that Enitity (God/ess, Universe, Tao, whatever) is utterly UNKNOWABLE, PERFECT and even INCONCIEVABLE.

Here. Visualise this:

It's the beginning of time... what does it look like?

You shouldn't be able to answer that. Now. What happened before this "beginning"? Huh? How can there be something before a beginning?

There had to be? Hadn't there? If there wasn't something before hand, then the beginning came out of nothing. How does Science tell you shit about that? Big Bang... Big Bullshit. Even if there were just gasses and energy around before the "world" began... who put them there.

OK. By now, you should really be re-considering your stance on the "Godless Universe". But lots of Scientists (as there are many wonderful, intelligent and creative scientists out there) will admit to believing in a higher power, it's just something they haven't been able to experiment on yet. The real BRAIN buster is trying to think about what came before "God".

So, God made all 'this' but who made God? And if He made God, then who made Him? It goes on. If you THINK of the answer to these ultimate paradoxes then you really are wrong. The mind can not concieve of anything greater than it's self- you are a shining example.

I guess this hasn't been short. And there's more. I have to respond to some of the ludicrous things you said (and I'm not talking about grammar or spelling, you are absolutely forgiven for that... I am sorry to hear of your Dyslexia, that would suck).

You said that I "assume that being overly persismitic make you cold and i will have no friend". What I said was that denying your Soul or any Spirit will dry out your friend source. And you said it yourself, "OVERLY pessamistic" So if pessimism was ever good, being "overly" so would be bad, right? Pessimism is never good, incidentally (in my opinion)... I often say, "Pessimism is a disease and Limitations are the symptoms."

You also said, "science does not make assumption it test itself to see if it correct were spiritualist does not." Both Science and Spirituality at their zeniths rely on EXPERIENCIAL data. I said that before.

And... "Da vinchi is a scientist not a spiriturlist if you really adore him you will take a scientist stand point to life."

As I said, he was both. Even if he was a hard-nosed, matter matters scientist like Newton or Descartes, I would not just adopt his "stand point in life". Be yourself, bitch.

Love,

Rob.

P.S. "well you should have posted this on beyound dreaming. if your so open minded yourself you could hear the other side of the argument the one which proberly Da vinchi would be on calling you ignorant."

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
[/b]

Although I perfectly understand your initial frustration with becomingagodo because he said, "everything you said is wrong" and further comments, I can not agree with the fallacies purported in your posts.

Firstly, and most importantly, this post of yours utilizes two of the most common fallacies of theists: begging the question and circular reasoning. Whatever the initial conflictual debate was, you have consulted the "theistic trump card" which is actually equivalent to "everything you atheists know is false because of X" X typically (if not always) being, "Who made the big bang? God did. Can you imagine an existance with nothing or time? No, because that is God and we can not conceive God." In other words, we can not argue with you because we, as humans, are completely incompetent and incapable of doing so. On the other hand, I have seen many atheists use the same argument in retortion - how can you make the assertion that an O3 God (omnsicient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent) has created everything? The characteristics of this God are given human characteristics that we are fully capable of conceiving.

Furthermore, why not bring in old St. Anselm and use his own argument againt himself (which is relevent to this context). "We can not conceive a God. We can not even conceive a God that is unconceivable." So, in actuality, you can not conceive anything let alone what a God is or who God is. How can you make any basis on what God is when we have nothing to even gauge what God is.

Secondly, I gather that you consider yourself a spiritualist. If that is so, why do you consider the three most important factors of your being to be scientifically discovered elements? (Sulfur, Mercury, and Salt) You are still using human and tangible conditions to explain your intangible existing "soul" and "God". Does this mean "God" is made of these elements..?

Thirdly, as far back as my reading of Da Vinci go, anyone who has a thorough history of Da Vinci should know that he was ostensibly a spiritualist becaues of his association with secret orders. Secret orders such as the Priory of Sion. This sect does hold a lot of debate beliefs and has become a major controversy, so I will not delve too much into it. Something we can agree upon is that A) he was part of it (in fact a leader) and B) the Priory of Sion did not believe Christ was a God or deity. There is much more to it, yes, but we can leave it there and at least assume that there will be easy speculation to Da Vinci's piousness.

Fourthly, we have a rough but empirical understanding of how dreams function but not what regulates them. This is what leaves many theories open and allows many people to rip that hole apart and throw in astral travel and all this other jargon. In counterexample, we do not exactly know how we think, does that mean that my soul is making me think? If that is true, what about animals? I will assume, like most modern people (unlike medieval people) will consider animals to have a soul. Then I ask, what makes us different from animals...? So we are not really much different than animals at all..? etc. etc...

Conclusively, we must not deviate too far from the topic at hand and digress into other topics which hold no relevance to the initial debate.... although, I am guilty of doing this now.. I hope this post is seen as pointing out fallacies and the exacterbation of the issues... I do not want to debate the beginning of time, I just want to purport that there are many theories out there that are all equally applicable at the time due to the severe lack of understanding - unlike dreaming and sleep.

~

After some thought i have to conclude that Daen is crazy. Even worse Daen does not know he crazy. See Daen how do you know that your belife of spirtuality is true the various forms you describe could be psychosis or magical thinking.

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates[/b]

You seem ignorant too

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Socrates [/b]

I pose this question to you daen how do you know you not crazy and wouldnt a crazy person say i am not crazy.

what makes you so sure you are right?

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

After some thought i have to conclude that Daen is crazy. Even worse Daen does not know he crazy. See Daen how do you know that your belife of spirtuality is true the various forms you describe could be psychosis or magical thinking.

You seem ignorant too

I pose this question to you daen how do you know you not crazy and wouldnt a crazy person say i am not crazy.
[/b]

I do not get it.... define crazy..?

~

what makes you so sure you are right? [/b]

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates[/b]

I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance.
Socrates[/b]

Me being crazy does not make you sane

wt fluff?

that is not an answer

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

Me being crazy does not make you sane
[/b]

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I think that you are now you are being completely skeptic.

Pyrrhonian Skepticism: This form of skepticisim concludes that we know nothing at all (not even that we know nothing). The Pyrrhonian Skeptic claims that we don't even know that we know nothing. The Pyrrhonian Skeptic rejects even this, and says that we know nothing, but we don't know that we know nothing.

In that case - do not make objectional conversation or debates because we could not even know that our points are based off of facts or faith as we do not even know what those are.

Go smoke a J and watch MTV.

~

yeah leave everyone alone becomingagodo. you arent even talking to me and you are still making me mad.

Theres a lot of arguing here, but im going with rem has nnothing to do with dreams.