If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to...

[moe]

I was thinking about how I dream, and how I see things. Then I realized something. It goes along the lines of, "if a tree falls in the forest, and theres is no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?" Some people say that it does make a sound, and others say that it doesn't, and I say I don't care. What does this have to do with dreams you say? It has everything to do with them. Although I haven't had an LD experience yet, but, from what I have been reading it sound as if this makes sense. When you look at your watch or some writing twice to see if it had changed, or if places, people, events keep changing then this might be the reason. OK here goes my thought on this. If you were dreaming then two things are happening: 1. You are seeing things with your imagination. 2. You know things without seeing them. When I am in room I only see certain thing in the room; I see only what is in front of me. I only see what I am focused on. It would not make sense to sak, "what's behind me?" Because there is nothing there, and I don't care. I am not focused on it. I am just seeing what I am currently focused on. The other thing is that somethings I don't get to see, but I get to know. I know I am in a room, or that the person I am talking to is dead. I don't have to see the room, and I would have never talked to that person before. I just know. The world around us is held together by the laws of physics, but dream worlds are held by our imaginations. Combine that with the idea that what we don't see doesn't exist. It does not exist in our imaginations yet nor are there any laws that hold them togther, therefore, the next time we try to look at a watch then it should change if our imagination chooses to change it (I don't even think it's a choice, I think we are inherntly fallible, and we can't hold our thoughts together quite well). The places also change because the fabric of thier existance is held together by the thin threads of our imagination. Once we don't think about them they are not there anymore. Then we have to recreate them again. moe.

[Howie]

If you are at the bar, and your wife is bitching, and there is no one there to here her -does that mean she is not bitching? Just thought I would add a little humor, but it is not meant for sake of taking your post as humor. I don't think your subconcious is made to be in a totaly organized atmosphere. I think it counter acts being concious. I agree with your Idea about the laws of pysics. When your in a dream state, while these events may not actually take place, from what I understand, is that at the time your mind thinks it is an actual event. Although I have been no where close to this height of lucidity in my dreams, some people can control there environment quite handily. I have read of people praticing speeches or golf swings in their lucid dreams. To me you would have to have a pretty contolled atmosphere. If our dream worlds are held together by our imagination, then some ponder wether or not it is write for us to altar are dreams by becoming a lucid dreamer.

[Mercubio]

IF sound is the brain's interpretation of vibrations, then wouldn't it stand to reason that it would NOT make a sound, since NOTHING makes sound, (except brains of course =). Again, like always, I could be wrong.

[Rtex]

Thats assuming that dreaming is totally in your head. So you could say that your not aware enough of the Dream realm for it to be stable. But this like most things belong in another topic. I think what your saying applies to most games. When the player is no longer in a certain area, then the guards, scenerios and everything else in that area cease to be. Until you go back into that area. THis is mostly because no system is powerful enough to simultaniously keep everything running in real time. But I think your referring to the equavalent in dreams. When your not looking at something, your mind sees no purpose of keeping it intact. so it fades away. And then, when you look back, it creates it again, not entirely the same. Thus the instability of dreams. If your not looking behind you, then there is no reason for your brain to create anything behind you. but if your focusing on something then your mind also focus's on that object/place/person. At least, thats the way I see it, provided dreaming is totally in your head that is....

[Mercubio]

Ok well what about the part in Waking Life where he talks about 360 degree vision. I mean, would you need to upgrade your processors or what?

[moe]

Rtex That's exactly what I mean. You gave a great example. I wish I had thought of that. Good job!

[Rtex]

Hehe, thanks, The same type of question came up about Metal Gear Solid, Something to the effect of, If a G-nome soldier trips in a nuclear silo, and nobodies around to hear him, does he make any noise? So it wasn't exactly, my example, I just have a good memory, which kindof sucks because most cool, and helpful things I say, are just things I've heard elsewhere. Its hard to be original when you remember everything But i'm rambling, I'm glad I was of help

[WerBurN]

makes sense to me lol...i never bothered to stop and think about why the clocks would always change that way, but this is exactly why i dont bother thinking about these things...eventually someone else comes along, whos already thought of it for me and tells me ;p

[moe]

Rtex Here is something I picked up, "you are but the sum of your parts." We all pick up parts from here and there and combine them together to make things out of them. Hence, being creative. moe

[Rtex]

Originally posted by WerBurN makes sense to me lol...i never bothered to stop and think about why the clocks would always change that way, but this is exactly why i dont bother thinking about these things...eventually someone else comes along, whos already thought of it for me and tells me ;p Lol, too funny man, I'm going to use that one later, Count on it. (Hmmm, it is quickly coming to the point where just one smiley isn't good enough for me. It just seems so much more powerful when there are multiple little yumdumdoodlydum bouncing ball smileys all bouncing at once.)

[Rtex]

Maybe, I'd like to think there is some originality in the world. But maybe its just people taking stuff they've picked up, and making different things out of them. Interesting quote though, did you write it, if not, then who said it?

[moe]

I picked it up from Star Trek NG from Ginan. I think that's how her name is spelled.

[moe]

Oops! I just fixed the saying. It's, "we are but the sum of our parts." Sorry.

[Rtex]

Awesome, a trekkie, I was into TNG for awhile, some pretty cool stuff. Anyhow, yea, I can see Guinan saying that.

[Lowercase Society]

Its strange-i've been thinking about this 'concept' for a few days now. "If a tree falls down in a forest, does it make a sound?" The logical answer is yes, but there are scientific 'freaks' who would beg to differ. As moe mentioned earlier...if what he is focusing on in the front of his eyes, does the objects behind him really exist? Its interesting studying the developement of children, and attachment in the first year of their life: As Piaget, a very influential psychologist, defined something now called 'OBJECT PERMANENCE'. if an object is placed infront of a baby less than one year usually, the object exists in its mind, but when the object is hidden, say by a large sheet, it NO LONGER EXISTS in the mind of the baby. This can be applyed to the theory of the tree but in a different way...did it really make a sound at all? well the object is still there for the baby, even it is hidden from its view, so what i am proposing, is that there actually IS a sound. and if your religious...'God heard it' I lean against the wind, Pretend that I am weightless, And in this moment I am happy…[/b]

[moe]

so what i am proposing, is that there actually IS a sound. and if your religious...'God heard it'[/b] Wow! That's pretty good. I took some time to think about what you said. I don't have a solid way of reponding positively or negatively to it. I believe within myself that the things that exist are the things we focus on, but I can't prove that. I believe that because there are fragments of ideas that strengthen that believe. Yet as a whole the fragments of ideas don't add up to prove that what I think is right. You could be right that it does exist but like the baby we don't retain it in our minds. Gosh! Thought provoking. moe

[Kaniaz]

Originally posted by Lowercase Society Its interesting studying the developement of children, and attachment in the first year of their life: As Piaget, a very influential psychologist, defined something now called 'OBJECT PERMANENCE'. if an object is placed infront of a baby less than one year usually, the object exists in its mind, but when the object is hidden, say by a large sheet, it NO LONGER EXISTS in the mind of the baby. I lean against the wind, Pretend that I am weightless, And in this moment I am happy… [/b] According to another scientist, this is wrong. But that's the problem with scientists- it takes them forever to agree on anything.

[Lowercase Society]

so true, my friend, so true. I hate when it takes scientists 3 years to figure out what color grass really is, or how long it would take to pogo-stick up mount everest. [quote]You saw me lost and treading water, I looked pathetic, I looked as helpless as a stinger without a bee. [/quote

[Howie]

I Think if it were not for scientist we would all be in a lowercase society. Although they may take countless times to get somthing correct at least they are searching for answers & questioning everything . Like we all should. As far as the baby thing, everthing in an infants mind is not made up yet. everything is going through a process of development. Not to say our minds do not develope aftrerwards. I just think scientist for the most part lean to one side to much. They don't seem open minded to things that cannot be proven.

[Lowercase Society]

interesting, Howetzer, i love your opinion on it. Today, everything was fine. Until roundabout, quarter to nine, I suddenly found myself in a bind. Was it something I said? Something I read an manifested that’s getting you down.[/b]

[Serinanth]

Hey Howetzer... You just found an open minded scientist that is exploring this side of nature =) Sound is a human term, we created it, to us sound is the intrpretation of vibrations of the atmpshere. True the vibrations exist no matter the situation, we cannot deny the physial laws of this reality. But... Sound needs an ear, sound needs a soul to exist, for without them, Sound would only be a vibration of the atmopshere...

[Howie]

Serinanth - I like open minded scientist. You have a good point. Know one can dispute they excist, but without interpretation they are just waves wondering around in space. That could hold true for your other senses as well, such as smell etc.