Here's A Dream Related Paradox, For You Guys.

[metcalfracing]

Ok, if you can answer this question... I can tell you right now that your smarter than I am. Do Dream Character's have innards, when they aren't cut open? That's the only way to express the idea, that I want to get across, that I can think of. I mean, when you cut them open, they have organs and such, but when the are unsheathed... are they hollow? Same with buildings, in dreams, do they have back alleys... back doors... things of that nature, when your standing in front of them.

[Uviteru]

IDK is there a way to know?

[blindfold_off]

Ok, if you can answer this question... I can tell you right now that your smarter than I am. Do Dream Character's have innards, when they aren't cut open? That's the only way to express the idea, that I want to get across, that I can think of. I mean, when you cut them open, they have organs and such, but when the are unsheathed... are they hollow? Same with buildings, in dreams, do they have back alleys... back doors... things of that nature, when your standing in front of them. [/b] You know, I've never really thought about that. Sometimes I notice that I can't see past a certain radius from me.

[metcalfracing]

IDK is there a way to know?[/b] Not that I can think of... Thats why I'm asking it here... I mean like, in a dream, say you look at a closed cupboard... you don't know what' s in it... is there anything? Until you look, you don't... is there anything inside when it's closed, or are the items stuck inside created out of necessity? Or, inside a building... is there specific furniture inside, before you can see inside?

[naikou]

Hmm... sounds like to me that you're asking whether or not dreams are "pre-rendered". As in: whether are not things are going on when you can't see/hear/feel them. Similar to the question: "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I think it's pretty certain that the question is impossible to answer. After all, there's no way to experiment, because in order to experiment, you'd have to observe, which would defeat the whole purpose.

[Uviteru]

Not that I can think of... Thats why I'm asking it here... I mean like, in a dream, say you look at a closed cupboard... you don't know what' s in it... is there anything? Until you look, you don't... is there anything inside when it's closed, or are the items stuck inside created out of necessity? Or, inside a building... is there specific furniture inside, before you can see inside? [/b] I would think not. But I guess you could have 2 opinions on this 1.) When you enter you dream everything is pre-made 2.) Your surroundings are made up as you go along my guess would be #2

[metcalfracing]

Think about this... We can all agree that if you open one up, dream characters have a brain... Does that mean, their brain issues commands to muscle groups, like what goes on inside us for movement?... in however in a way that our subconscious leads, of course. Not only that, but do dream characters have their own thoughts? Ideas? Personalities? I mean... the Author of the original novel "The peculiar case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"... Created his own dream workshop that was populated with his little helpers that he called "Brownies".... they would give him a paragraph, and he'd right it down... that's how he made the book... Where did the ideas come from? He even made comments on how they managed to keep him guessing all the way through. The man had no idea how the book would turn out, and yet, he made one of the classics that way.

[zypher0550]

I don't know...use an x-ray.

[jedimind]

The inside of the cupboard doesn't even exist until you observe it.

[PNG_pyro]

Dude, your getting into what I like to think of as "Quantum" here. (Yeah, I know, that word means something else...) That is, the purely theoretical realm where we cannot prove anything because it's based on the theory that observation changes the observed. I really don't think it matters, and I just tend to ignore this kinda thing. On the other hand, where could I find out more about what the author of Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde did?

[Seeker]

Ive taken my hand and pressed it into a DC on a couple of occasions. They had innards at that point. Now, back to the quantumness. The innards neither were present or missing until I made the attempt to "see" them, at which point, they spontaneously collapsed into their current state. You guys that have dream sex with your DC's, do they have innards?

[Oneironaut Zero]

I'd have to say yes to the original question. The innards, just like the DC's, themselves, are born from your thought process, whether conscious or unconscious. Dreams seem to flow along pre-conceived expectations or those that stem from waking-world experience, so it's possible that your mind is aware of your dream character having insides to match his outsides, just as we are aware that the people we encounter, in waking life, have insides, even though we don't see them. Just knowing what a person looks like is enough to bring a mental projection of that person into your dream. I'd figure that just by assuming that DC has insides which, I think, is our default way of seeing other people, then those insides "exist," even if it's on such a subconscious level as a distant schema. Those innards wouldn't be static, of course, meaning that you have the ability to decide that they do not exist but, that would take conscious intention. As far as conceptual thought goes, though, I think we are subconsciously defaulted to look at DC's as having innards before we see them, so they probably do.

[Tornado Joe]

Yah, what big O said. If I were to battle some DC in a, let's say, medieval duel - I'd expect blood from his wounds. If I were to battle some alien, my dream generator would likely create somekind of green guck, or even pull a reference from"Alien" and have the blood be acid. Battle with a mummy? Probably sand for blood - who knows? Only thing is, how could we explain something totally unexpected pouring out of a wound - like butterflies or something? There has to be a point to which our schema breaks down and our imagination (or more abstract thoughts) interfere. That's where the fun comes in. Else, our dreams would simply mirror our waking life. This is why reading in dreams is difficult - our minds can only process information so fast and hold a thought for so long before it moves on to the next thing. It's constantly generating content - on the fly. Its kind of like playing a video game: the characters and actions are already rendered and built in. No matter what you do in the game, you are limited to what was programmed. In dreams, however, the game is being programmed as you play. GOT DAMN! Dreams Rock!

[ivey]

Well, since I'm of the belief that DC's are just made up beings in your mind, my answer is very Napoleon Dynamite-esque. Question: What's inside of a DC when it's not cut open? Answer: Whatever I feel like. Gosh![/b] To be technical, a DC isn't even a thing. It's space. It's another plane/dimension, etc. It's thought. If one desired, and had the skills (Ah Napoleon&#33, they could open up a DC and have it be hollow. Or have blood inside. Or have circuitboard. Or whatever. It's not "reality". It's a thought. There's nothing inside of them because they are merely another "sense" formulated by a person. Or maybe I'm just taking the whole question too literally........

[metcalfracing]

Ok, but what about buildings. I mean, if your in a room... not even thinking about the fact that something should outside the room, what's there? Nothingness?... PS. You gotta check out my sweet bow staff skills, Ivey

[Oneironaught]

As far as what you'd expect, I agree with Oneironaut, that DC, buildings, etc., can "have" innards by virtue of our expectation. Now, as far as the visual aspect goes, I can best put my view in words by comparison to video game graphics: I don't believe that the mind "renders" objects until they are actually in our line of sight. We may perceive them to be there or expect or know them to be, yes. That's for sure. However, I tend to believe that the dream visual system uses "back culling". In computer graphics, back culling is a process by which only the parts of objects which are presently in the field of vision (on screen) are actually being actively constructed by the graphics engine/processor. Of course, my analogy may be faulty, I don't know, but that seems to me to be the most efficient way for the mind to create such elaborate scenes in a dream. We implicitly know but we explicitly see. What amazes me is that I was just coming up with my back-culling theory of dream vision yesterday and I only saw this topic for the first time today. EDIT: I mean "backface culling"

[PNG_pyro]

Yah, I'd pretty much have to go with what ^ thinks. I would take it a step farther; Is a DC even solid until you touch them? I'd have to say no, simply because of the same reason. in fact, I think that in a dream every sense is subject to "Back culling"; not simply because our brains couldn't handle it, but because of all the strange things that happen. I mean, if all of this was set out by our brains before we did anything, we wouldn't have such weird dreams. and beleive me, I KNOW weird dreams.

[BeautifulDreamer]

I think, at least. Our concious generates only the images in front of us, so the inside of a DC until you cut it open is devoid, I suppose.

[magicrules22311]

There is nothing on the inside of dream characters, the only time there would be something is if you were going to cut them open and look because your brain is creating an inside for them. -Rob

[FluBB]

i hope no one has said this already.. but your question sounds a lot like the classic question "If the tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see it does it still make a sound." well... i dont know. physics says yes. so i guess i do to.

[Oneironaught]

I think, at least. Our concious generates only the images in front of us, so the inside of a DC until you cut it open is devoid, I suppose.[/b] I'll take it a step farther and say that there is no "inside" at all. Until it's visible, that is.

[Lunalight]

Oh, so very "Shrodinger's Cat." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrodinger%27s_cat I love this kind of stuff. I think the DC both has and does not have organs, at the same time, until you observe it. "In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a superposition of states and becomes either one or the other when an observation takes place."

[Casualtie]

Personally, I don't think it is there until you are looking at it or for it. That is when your mind will create it. Thats the only way I can think of explaining it..

[Virtuozo]

OK I'll answer your question with an example. Right imagine an APPLE! ... You can IMAGINE this APPLE whenever you want, right? Now your question is like asking: "Does that apple exist in your mind before you actually IMAGINE it?" The answer would be NO! .. Because the apple is created in your mind the moment you start to imagine it. It's the same with dreams and DC's. They do not have any innards UNTIL you start looking for the innards or start imagining them. (Something like that) I know that there is no way I can prove that , but that's just my opinion.

[Oneironaught]

Personally, I don't think it is there until you are looking at it or for it. That is when your mind will create it. Thats the only way I can think of explaining it..[/b] I'm gonna have to go with that explanation. While our rational, reflective mind knows that people have guts, our dream faculties don't necessarily employ rational applications of knowledge. I agree that thought and consciousness probably occurs on a quantum level. But I don't believe that the dream mind even attempts to handle hidden, unseen constructs of the visible environment. But - since we know guts to exist (and, in fact expect to see them if we peered inside) - there's a good chance that our expectations will manifest themselves when called upon. So, in contrast to Shrodinger's Cat - which deals with the quantum states of always being or not being, depending upon the effects of observation - I think we're really dealing with being or not being only when we observe. In other words, the guts are never either there or not there unless being observed. That's my theory at least. It's no more right than any other but it's the one that appeases me