Thread: Dream time against this worlds time.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

Now, two things.

1. What are the chances that a brain would work at a max speed that would make dream time similar to real life time?

2. This morning I have gained experience in such a scenario in which dream time is WAY faster than real life time.
When my alarm went of this morning, my clock read 7:19 exactly. I accidentally fell back asleep. I then had a dream that even if time dilation occurred as you explain it, the total dream time would be at least 10 minutes. When I woke back up the clock still read 7:19, I was shocked that such a long dream fit into a very short time. After that passed I counted until the clock changed, I got to 21. So at least 10 minutes fit into a 30 second real time. I come up with a ratio of Real Time : Dream Time to be 1:20.

You think this is unusual? I do this every day. Adventures that appear to last half an hour but take only minutes. It isn't your brain working faster. It can't go any faster. By the physical laws of the universe, it cannot go faster. Comprehend this. Understand this. Your brain is dependent on chemical reactions. Those reactions have a fixed and finite speed. Most of your brain is segmented into processes that have nothing to do with conscious thought. The vast majority goes to operations like making sure you don't stop breathing and interpreting sensations received from the physical world. Those specialized sections of the brain cannot somehow flip operations in "down time". They cannot increase brain speed. The chemical reactions that take place don't somehow kick into overdrive. Awake or asleep, it doesn't matter. A membrane will always take the same amount of time to repolarize. Studies done in sleeping show no significant increase in blood flow or brain activity during dreams. Certainly not enough to make it function fast enough to operate at 20 times normal capacity.

Believe it or not, what you experienced was time dilation. A mental delusion created by your own brain (operating at normal speed, I may add). You only remember it differently. That's the key word, ladies and gentlemen. Remember. Seeing as how we have a well-documented history on how frequently and easily the brain creates false memories, remembrance doesn't carry much scientific weight here.

Mario is right I think there's a confusion between facts and perceptions. If we try to explain the world using the information given by our senses we are destined to fail in explaining phenomena. If I asked you to look out of the window and try to guess what's the earth shape you could only tell it's flat because that's the only way you can percieve it with your eyes, ancient people weren't idiots, they were just measuring with the wrong instrument. Time itself is a perception. It doesn't exist. What exists is a correlation between thoughts supported by memory , nothing more, you can call it time or whatever you like. The fact is our body can't break physics laws just like a rock or a drop of water can't. Physiological transmission speed of electrical impulses is limited and it's always at the limit, it can only be lower, never higher. Affirming the opposite would be like saying an object can reach temperatures equal or below -273,15°C.

Go for it.

Originally Posted by Mirror

Mario is right I think there's a confusion between facts and perceptions. If we try to explain the world using the information given by our senses we are destined to fail in explaining phenomena. If I asked you to look out of the window and try to guess what's the earth shape you could only tell it's flat because that's the only way you can percieve it with your eyes, ancient people weren't idiots, they were just measuring with the wrong instrument. Time itself is a perception. It doesn't exist. What exists is a correlation between thoughts supported by memory , nothing more, you can call it time or whatever you like. The fact is our body can't break physics laws just like a rock or a drop of water can't. Physiological transmission speed of electrical impulses is limited and it's always at the limit, it can only be lower, never higher. Affirming the opposite would be like saying an object can reach temperatures equal or below -273,15°C.

I couldn't agree more, and time is only a human perception of the world, and non-existent. What I am trying to say is that no matter how much research we put into it, we will never truly understand the brain and it's potential. As many people don't believe it, human brains can communicate telepathically, and science will never be able to prove it wrong or right, only stuck scientists who tell the world it is, creating a false belief. That is an example of something about the brain we will never truly know.

Mario, Do believe that time is a real factor that our universe uses? Or do you think it is truly coincidence that everything works out correctly allowing humans to perceive that time is really there?
Maybe the human brain doesn't process very much information at all, but it is still running a high speeds. Maybe it is magic and can process an infinite amount of information at one time, but only chooses to process so much at once. You, me, and everyone else will never know the true answer. In science the "PROOF" we find is only our own perception and sometimes only theories, that can be totally wrong.
It is not 100% certain that all matter is made up of atoms. It is not 100% certain weather we were created by the big bang or anything else. It is not 100% certain weather there is a god or anything else.

Nothing is ever certain, so neither of us can just go and say "This is absolutely true, you're completely wrong", because that just makes you stuck up and stubborn, there is always the chance to be wrong.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

blah blah etc

Here's the problem with your claims to this point: you submit no empirical evidence. Only personal anecdotes. You seem lacking in even a basic understanding of how the brain operates. On top of this, you claim magic as a valid alternate hypothesis. It's a nice fantasy, but without any evidence, cannot be taken seriously. We have an increasingly good understanding of how the brain operates on the microscopic and macroscopic levels. We have, to date, not seen anything that suggests the human mind has the "vast infinite potential" you elude to. The brain is powerful, yes. It has memory beyond compare, and can perform calculations faster than the fastest calculator. But it is limited. What you are proposing is that the brain can accelerate to 20 times its normal resting rate while we're asleep and only while we're dreaming with next to no increase in blood flow, oxygen consumption, or measurable brain activity. This is a truly extraordinary claim, and to be taken seriously by anyone at all ever, you're going to have to back it up with evidence. The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. Much in the same way there could be unicorns or fairies or leprechauns, I have no reason to think they actually exist without evidence.

And to answer your question, with what we know of the universe, "time" is a very real thing. Particles collide, then take separate, new courses different from their previous ones. If nothing else, time is the constant, ongoing reactions between particles in our universe. Perception of time is perception of those collisions. Perception varies. A beam of light has a constant speed under standard temperature and pressure, regardless if human are around to perceive it.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Here's the problem with your claims to this point: you submit no empirical evidence. Only personal anecdotes. You seem lacking in even a basic understanding of how the brain operates. On top of this, you claim magic as a valid alternate hypothesis. It's a nice fantasy, but without any evidence, cannot be taken seriously. We have an increasingly good understanding of how the brain operates on the microscopic and macroscopic levels. We have, to date, not seen anything that suggests the human mind has the "vast infinite potential" you elude to. The brain is powerful, yes. It has memory beyond compare, and can perform calculations faster than the fastest calculator. But it is limited. What you are proposing is that the brain can accelerate to 20 times its normal resting rate while we're asleep and only while we're dreaming with next to no increase in blood flow, oxygen consumption, or measurable brain activity. This is a truly extraordinary claim, and to be taken seriously by anyone at all ever, you're going to have to back it up with evidence. The burden of proof is on YOUR shoulders. Much in the same way there could be unicorns or fairies or leprechauns, I have no reason to think they actually exist without evidence.

I never said it is magic, I never said that it can, I simply stated we don't know. And in my own personal experience, with the deduction of any POSSIBLE time dilation that occurred, my dream lasted much more than 30 seconds.

And I do have a decent understanding of the human brain, and when I claimed that when dreaming it leaves more processing room to dream, I meant that our conscious mind isn't trying to understand what is happening in the outside world, leaving more processing room, and our subconscious is reading this information, but it still doesn't process it as much as if you were awake.

Also, to my understanding at least, a normal dream is only processed on the subconscious mind. But a lucid dream is on both the subconscious and conscious minds. If that statement is true, then you cannot argue that lucid dreams have the potential to be longer than normal ones.

20 times faster you say?? This seems somehow familiar to me... 10 hours of flight would be... a week in dream time. 6 months on the second level, 10 years on the third. A dream within a dream? Must have been some movie I saw this in

Whoa, so much arguing over this. There is no such thing as "dream time" time is time, regardless of where it is, what you are describing MIIISTERNEUGIT is just making your own perception of time different, thus, for you more "time" passed by than it really was. It is just how you can't have a real yard and a dream yard (The measure thingy), it will be the same, you would just change perception of it.

Said that, I have dilated time up to 16 hours whithin a dream, of course this means that I changed my perception of time, by whatever means, to make it seem that long. Also, I heard some have time-dilated for as long as 100 or so years, so yeah.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

I never said it is magic, I never said that it can, I simply stated we don't know. And in my own personal experience, with the deduction of any POSSIBLE time dilation that occurred, my dream lasted much more than 30 seconds.

This is called an appeal from incredulity. It is a logical fallacy. Your personal anecdote continues to carry no weight, regardless of what you believe occurred.

And I do have a decent understanding of the human brain, and when I claimed that when dreaming it leaves more processing room to dream, I meant that our conscious mind isn't trying to understand what is happening in the outside world, leaving more processing room, and our subconscious is reading this information, but it still doesn't process it as much as if you were awake.

...Riiiiiiight. Because interpreting an external sense is apparently far less intensive than creating it from scratch, or building it from memory. Wake up, mate. Even assuming any "slack" will immediately be picked up and converted to pure raw processing speed (and we have no reason to think it is), you aren't anywhere near the mythical 20x claim.

Also, to my understanding at least, a normal dream is only processed on the subconscious mind. But a lucid dream is on both the subconscious and conscious minds. If that statement is true, then you cannot argue that lucid dreams have the potential to be longer than normal ones.

There is a very small part of the brain that turns on during lucid dreams over non-lucid dreams. It is a part that deals with logic and rational thought. It is what enables people to detect that they're dreaming. A regular dream overall differs very slightly from a lucid dream. Also, fail logic is a failure. Non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

In subjective reality, one would say that dream time is altered, just because one believes it to be so. Whether or not it actually "is," is a different story. You can't prove that time slows down, speeds up, or remains constant, in "dream time," from what I can understand. How could anyone prove it? You can't bring a clock that actually "works" with you into the dream world....

My opinion: Time probably isn't altered; it's illusive. However, it is sorta silly to try measuring something that is rather perceptual.

PS: Lol I think the way Mario92 words things is cute, using big fancy words, and being the "Voice of Reason." ^^

Uh, the experiment laberge did after telling people to count proves that it can remain constant, actually. Of course, his experiment didn't involve anyone trying to slow or speed it up, so those areas are free.

Originally Posted by Mario92

This is called an appeal from incredulity. It is a logical fallacy. Your personal anecdote continues to carry no weight, regardless of what you believe occurred.



...Riiiiiiight. Because interpreting an external sense is apparently far less intensive than creating it from scratch, or building it from memory. Wake up, mate. Even assuming any "slack" will immediately be picked up and converted to pure raw processing speed (and we have no reason to think it is), you aren't anywhere near the mythical 20x claim.



There is a very small part of the brain that turns on during lucid dreams over non-lucid dreams. It is a part that deals with logic and rational thought. It is what enables people to detect that they're dreaming. A regular dream overall differs very slightly from a lucid dream. Also, fail logic is a failure. Non sequitur fallacy. The conclusion does not follow the premise.

It appears you have completely misunderstood every single word I have posted on this thread. Your extreme bias is completely blocking out the intention of my words.

And "The Voice of Reason"? What the hell? The true voice of reason would see that there is the possibility anything he says is wrong, he would look at all angles and put 0 bias on his reasoning. You are just a stuck up snob that thinks he knows everything, and anyone who disagrees with him is totally wrong. You obviously don't understand science. Science does not uncover the truth of things, it uncovers what looks like or what could possibly be the truth. Science can be wrong, every single thing that everyone knows has the potential to be 100% wrong.

Consider me out of the argument. Or out of whatever this is, your biased chat? I find no point in trying to move a boulder that is obviously fused with the ground.

Either way, I'm out.

Well, you are the one who decides to insult mario for disagreeing with you, so it would seem to me that you are the one who seems to think he knows everything. Using his title when it has nothing to do with the conversation, because someone else pointed it out, also points towards that. And you never asked if he believed in those things 100%.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

It appears you have completely misunderstood every single word I have posted on this thread. Your extreme bias is completely blocking out the intention of my words.

And "The Voice of Reason"? What the hell? The true voice of reason would see that there is the possibility anything he says is wrong, he would look at all angles and put 0 bias on his reasoning. You are just a stuck up snob that thinks he knows everything, and anyone who disagrees with him is totally wrong. You obviously don't understand science. Science does not uncover the truth of things, it uncovers what looks like or what could possibly be the truth. Science can be wrong, every single thing that everyone knows has the potential to be 100% wrong.

Consider me out of the argument. Or out of whatever this is, your biased chat? I find no point in trying to move a boulder that is obviously fused with the ground.

Either way, I'm out.

Wow, what a fantastic personal attack! Would you mind showing me exactly where I said I was absolutely correct? Cuz I'm pretty sure I acknowledged I could be wrong on several occasions. Like this one:

Much in the same way there could be unicorns or fairies or leprechauns, I have no reason to think they actually exist without evidence.

I think I quite clearly stated that unicorns and leprechauns and magic could exist, but without evidence, why believe so? Of course you could be right. I have absolutely no reason to think you are, and a hundred thousand good reasons to think you're wrong. But there's still hope, however faint.

If you grasped science, you'd understand the need for evidence and a skeptical mind. Now, since we've removed your misunderstanding about my conviction, where does that leave us? With well documented phenomenon against your evidence-free and unrealistic hypothesis. Oh, and a personal anecdote, which quite obviously carries no weight. If you want to use science, show me that it works and how, and I will change my mind. Until then, I've no reason to think you're right.

The irony here is that you retain such confidence and belief in your own hypothesis that you shut out alternatives and evidence that suggests you're probably wrong. Think about that and get back to me.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Wow, what a fantastic personal attack! Would you mind showing me exactly where I said I was absolutely correct? Cuz I'm pretty sure I acknowledged I could be wrong on several occasions. Like this one:

I think I quite clearly stated that unicorns and leprechauns and magic could exist, but without evidence, why believe so? Of course you could be right. I have absolutely no reason to think you are, and a hundred thousand good reasons to think you're wrong. But there's still hope, however faint.

If you grasped science, you'd understand the need for evidence and a skeptical mind. Now, since we've removed your misunderstanding about my conviction, where does that leave us? With well documented phenomenon against your evidence-free and unrealistic hypothesis. Oh, and a personal anecdote, which quite obviously carries no weight. If you want to use science, show me that it works and how, and I will change my mind. Until then, I've no reason to think you're right.

The irony here is that you retain such confidence and belief in your own hypothesis that you shut out alternatives and evidence that suggests you're probably wrong. Think about that and get back to me.

Hey, look back, did I even say once that my ideals have to be correct? No.

And I have thought about every single piece of "evidence", though none was given by EITHER of us, and still personally believe it might be possible for dream time to beat real time. I may be wrong, but we will probably never know. You might be right, but we will probably never know. But in my experience, I have witnessed dream time that had to have been faster than real time, that I do know. Believe whatever you want.

My mind IS very flexible. Sometimes it annoys me it isn't a bit more stubborn. After I say what I believe to someone, it is as if there is two people in my head arguing over what I said. These two people examine the whole idea and argue every point of it. It usually ends up unsettled because of the lack of more information to cover.

And yes, you could still be called "The Voice of Reason", but it's more your reason than just general reason. And I would recommended being less of a jerk in your posts, as I post in the tone of the conversation. If you are attacking less personally I would follow.

Originally Posted by Hukif

Well, you are the one who decides to insult mario for disagreeing with you, so it would seem to me that you are the one who seems to think he knows everything. Using his title when it has nothing to do with the conversation, because someone else pointed it out, also points towards that. And you never asked if he believed in those things 100%.

I started to insult him because I feel as though he's insulting me.

And I didn't need to ask him, he says over and over that what I say is difficult to grasp due to no evidence. He isn't giving any evidence either, this is just theory. Arguing over theories is stupid. I'm opting out of the stupidity.

Difficult to grasp for him because there is no universal evidence, only anecdotal. You could aswell agree to disagree, that is way easier than start insulting each other.

Originally Posted by Hukif

Difficult to grasp for him because there is no universal evidence, only anecdotal. You could aswell agree to disagree, that is way easier than start insulting each other.

There is absolutely Zero evidence for either of us.

Umm, how many times have I said I am done with this argument? I guess I never specifically said "Let's agree to disagree", so I see how some may misinterpret that.

Fine Mario, lets just agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

There is absolutely Zero evidence for either of us.

Um....
Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Speed of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (nothing can exceed this speed)
Physical law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Human brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hormone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Na+/K+-ATPase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I could go on.

Action potential
Speed of light
Physical law
Brain
Human brain
Hormone
Na+/K+-ATPase


Legend:
Could possibly be used in an argument, but needs to be explained first.
How the hell is this proof of anything? Or even relevant to the conversation?

Proof Tally?
MIIISTER | Mario
0 0

Also, we don't know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. We have just never seen anything go faster. It is like saying it is impossible to be taller than 6'5" because no one has ever seen it. (Yes, I know there are people taller than 6'5", just a theoretical example).

Now, once again, let's just agree to disagree, with no evidence we are arguing about nothing, and just being stupid.

Originally Posted by MIIISTERNEUGIT

Action potential
Speed of light
Physical law
Brain
Human brain
Hormone
Na+/K+-ATPase


Legend:
Could possibly be used in an argument, but needs to be explained first.
How the hell is this proof of anything? Or even relevant to the conversation?

Proof Tally?
MIIISTER | Mario
0 0

Also, we don't know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. We have just never seen anything go faster. It is like saying it is impossible to be taller than 6'5" because no one has ever seen it. (Yes, I know there are people taller than 6'5", just a theoretical example).

Now, once again, let's just agree to disagree, with no evidence we are arguing about nothing, and just being stupid.

Action potential: the finite speed at which a cellular membrane can transmit an electrochemical signal. Also, the time it takes to repolarize that membrane to send the next signal.
Speed of light: no known thing in the universe can exceed this speed. Ergo, infinite processing is impossible
Laws of physics: the brain cannot break them.
Brain: see human brain
Human brain: All we collectively know of the brain and how its various regions operate. Also, that it has a finite capacity and speed.
Hormone: a common chemical messenger in the body. Stimulates brain activity. Finite speed
Sodium Potassium Pump: the protein used to repolarize a membrane in an action potential. Essential to transmitting signals. Likewise has a finite speed.

I'd love to elaborate further, but if you will kindly observe all that we know to date on your own accord, the brain working at 20 times its normal speed is a truly ridiculous hypothesis. Occam's Razor: the solution with the fewest variables is most likely correct.

also:
False memory syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Time perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The longest dream I have had spanned over a day. Where I went to sleep in my dream and got up in my dream and resumed the next day in said dream.
I also sometimes have "blackout" periods in dreams. These are usually followed by me waking up in the dream still and resuming the dream and often telling DC's about my blackout and how weird it was and also telling them about how this and other things happen in my dreams. This happens post-lucidity a lot, and is similar to false awakenings, except the difference is that i "know" that it is the "next day" and it is most definitely a continuation of the same dream.
I have had dreams that last longer than one day several times.
It is very possible to do what you are speaking of, except that I find it most difficult to go to sleep and pick up where I left off in my dream. Usually that only happens when my unconscious is really trying to convey a certain message or symbol to me.

Go for it.

Throwing in my two cents, I personally feel like Mario9-dick, is being an asshole.
Yes, post your ideas about dreamtime, but you're blatantly telling these people that they are wrong, when time within a dream is a realm that no science we know of can test, no matter what you say.
I agree with Will1 about the theory of relativity and how it can play into this. Anyway, we haven't even figured out what sense our "mind's eye" can be classified under, it isn't sight, so how can it be regarded as such in a dream?
Honestly, I don't know how dreamtime works, but I do know that people experience things differently, and for all we know, everyone experiences dreamtime differently.

replying to the actual subject of this thread, I have wanted to try the exact thing you're talking about. Living lives within dreams, and lives within reality. Who knows if its possible, good luck!

Originally Posted by MCAngst

Throwing in my two cents, I personally feel like Mario9-dick, is being an asshole.
Yes, post your ideas about dreamtime, but you're blatantly telling these people that they are wrong, when time within a dream is a realm that no science we know of can test, no matter what you say.
I agree with Will1 about the theory of relativity and how it can play into this. Anyway, we haven't even figured out what sense our "mind's eye" can be classified under, it isn't sight, so how can it be regarded as such in a dream?
Honestly, I don't know how dreamtime works, but I do know that people experience things differently, and for all we know, everyone experiences dreamtime differently.

replying to the actual subject of this thread, I have wanted to try the exact thing you're talking about. Living lives within dreams, and lives within reality. Who knows if its possible, good luck!

Nice to see someone on my side, though I would tone the posts down a bit seeing as you aren't a very big part of the site yet. Aside other things, I want to live lives inside my dreams because I'm writing a few screenplays for movies and I want to literally see life from the character's perspective. If I ever become a super famous movie maker then it will bring a lot more people to the world of lucid dreaming.