Dreams are real

The opposite of real is imaginary, a bit like the non-real version of any solid object could be a 3D model of it in a computer.
Just because something is not real doesn't mean it does not exist. A 3D model of something "exists", in that it is a fact, but it does not exist in the material world.
It is important to get this definition right, because it is the very way that we distinguish WL from the dream world.
An RC is an (imperfect) test that differentiates between real "hard" objects and imagined ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

The opposite of real is imaginary.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

An RC is an (imperfect) test that differentiates between real "hard" objects and imagined ones.

---

You are assuming that we all impart the same meaning to the word "real", but there could be as many definitions of that word, as there are people using it.

You are also assuming that all experiences that are not "hard", are imagined. Therefore you are assuming away any persistent worlds that are not "hard" but are not imagined. This assumption is definitely not shared by everyone.

By your definition the "astral plane" cannot exist - whether or not it in fact does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Voldmer

You are assuming that we all impart the same meaning to the word "real", but there could be as many definitions of that word, as there are people using it.

You are also assuming that all experiences that are not "hard", are imagined. Therefore you are assuming away any persistent worlds that are not "hard" but are not imagined. This assumption is definitely not shared by everyone.

By your definition the "astral plane" cannot exist - whether or not it in fact does.

---

Sure, there are various definitions of real. I'm Just putting my view when applied to the OP "dreams are real - discuss". For me dreams are the perfect definition of something imagined. Full stop.

I don't get the astral plane bit. Sorry. Just fanciful belief like Never Never Land. Fine if you want to believe in it. I don't think any less of anyone believing it or anything else like it, by the way. So long as people don't over-promote or shove it down my throat I am happy for people to believe stuff that may not be true.
I just expect a degree of proof before I will believe something to be true. Until then I maintain a healthy skepticism.

I am saying nothing about experiences that are not "hard". That's not in the real definition that I am applying to dreams. If you say you have an experience, it doesn't really make any sense to me to say that it is "real" in the real/imaginary sense. I'm confining the definition of real to one as applied to dreams, i.e. not real but imaginary.

I don't have any concept of what a "persistent world that is not "hard"" actually means when applied to the definition of real.
Prove that such a thing exists outside of someone's imagination and I will believe you.

I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, while my head can be in the stars (real / imaginary).

Guess for me dreams are real, just a real event that happens while one sleeps and nothing more despite having quite a bunch of weird dream experiences. But it seems like the OP is talking about it in a BD sense, in which case I would have to side with "not real", there is no reason to believe so without any actual proof or experience at hand and since we can't share our experience with other people as is, then don't see the point of discussing it here in the general lucid part of the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

Sure, there are various definitions of real. I'm Just putting my view when applied to the OP "dreams are real - discuss". For me dreams are the perfect definition of something imagined. Full stop.

I don't get the astral plane bit. Sorry. Just fanciful belief like Never Never Land. Fine if you want to believe in it. I don't think any less of anyone believing it or anything else like it, by the way. So long as people don't over-promote or shove it down my throat I am happy for people to believe stuff that may not be true.
I just expect a degree of proof before I will believe something to be true. Until then I maintain a healthy skepticism.

I am saying nothing about experiences that are not "hard". That's not in the real definition that I am applying to dreams. If you say you have an experience, it doesn't really make any sense to me to say that it is "real" in the real/imaginary sense. I'm confining the definition of real to one as applied to dreams, i.e. not real but imaginary.

I don't have any concept of what a "persistent world that is not "hard"" actually means when applied to the definition of real.
Prove that such a thing exists outside of someone's imagination and I will believe you.

I prefer to keep my feet on the ground, while my head can be in the stars (real / imaginary).

---

Well I would consider myself "scientific-minded" by all means (in fact, I study scientific subjects like math and physics on a university level at the moment), however, I still allow myself to feel intrigued by "extraordinary" possibilities.
I have never really liked being super-skeptical about everything until I get "hard proof" or whatever, I think it's much more fun and exciting to imagine that something might be true, and my attitude is that I am eagerly waiting for something to turn out true (if I care about it, of course), rather than completely denying its existence until it has been proven beyond all possible doubt.
The fact is that dreams are still a great mystery, and there are lots of things about them that we don't know anything about, and this makes them very fascinating.
The Astral Plane may seem like pseudo-science at the moment, but that's only because we still haven't been able to prove that it exists - everything has been pseudo-science at some point in the past, and a lot of people from Newton's time would think you were crazy if you started talking about "nonsense" like the bending of space an time, electrical devices, quantum physics etc.
Sure, a few scientists may accept your "babble" and see your point, but they would still not be ready to accept it as actual "science".

I am not jumping to conclusions, and I am still not ready to just accept certain things about dreams in general, however I certainly hope that some of them will turn out real someday - like the Astral Plane, for example.
You have gotta admit that the Astral Plane is an insanely cool idea, it would be a truly unique and magical experience to be able to actually observe the physical world as a ghost.
Also, some people believe that dream characters may be actual living entities, simply because the way they interact with you sometimes seems very complex and intelligent for just being "in your imagination".
A lot of people, including myself, have had long deep conversations with dream characters, and even had them teach us things, so on some level it seems like they are independent beings, which is very cool.

I say that dreams are real experiences, just as real as waking life experiences when you are having a dream. But because we tend to not remember them as well as waking life events, they don't feel as real afterward.

Someone once said, "Reality is what is left after you leave the room," or something like that.

I guess the question here might be: What is left after we leave the "room" of dreams?

Maybe what is left is nothing more than a memory; but memory doesn't do a good job of labeling which memories were real, and which weren't, does it? Instead, it tends to report them all as real, and we're left to decide which are which all by our waking-life selves.

Based on current knowledge dreams are just our immagination and not a separate reality, however I'm not saying that this is true at all. Scientists still don't even know why we have dreams in the first place. Also the only known effect that dreams can have on us is a physiological effect. But all of this could change in the future with increased knowledge.

Hey Laurelindo, I do get your idea about wanting to believe in things mystical, and I have a degree of that myself. I don't expect cold hard logic before I believe in something. For a start we have to trust a lot of the science proof anyway, because there's no way we can understand it all. That sort of makes it like a religion.
As to the astral plane, I'm keeping an open mind but can't really believe in it.
The idea of some mystical connection either between dreamers or with the after life is a bit hard to swallow.
I just think that sometimes people see science as some sort of bad guy, and in order to rebel they believe in some pretty obscure stuff, when actually the natural world is so full of amazing things there's enough to keep anyone fascinated.
I'm all for a bit of escaping to fantasy, but I like to build up a picture of what science knows to be true so that I hope I know what is real (more or less).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goldenspark

Hey Laurelindo, I do get your idea about wanting to believe in things mystical, and I have a degree of that myself. I don't expect cold hard logic before I believe in something. For a start we have to trust a lot of the science proof anyway, because there's no way we can understand it all. That sort of makes it like a religion.
As to the astral plane, I'm keeping an open mind but can't really believe in it.
The idea of some mystical connection either between dreamers or with the after life is a bit hard to swallow.
I just think that sometimes people see science as some sort of bad guy, and in order to rebel they believe in some pretty obscure stuff, when actually the natural world is so full of amazing things there's enough to keep anyone fascinated.
I'm all for a bit of escaping to fantasy, but I like to build up a picture of what science knows to be true so that I hope I know what is real (more or less).

---

I've always thought it's sort of ironic the way people vouch for science, as it seems that the most atheistic people are more fanatic than the most religious.
Intelligence is being able to perceive beliefs without the filter of your bias. If you can contemplate religion and science simultaneously, you might figure out more than just siding with either.
What is even more ironic is that religion can be understood scientifically, just as science can be viewed through a religious perspective. Religion starts with the understanding of spirituality and ends with the understanding of science, science begins with a physical means to an inevitably spiritual end. The bible describes not only prophecy, but scientific facts. Such as the function of reproductive organs, fundamental brain/sensory function, and the alchemical (and fractal) relationship between every conceptual process in the human body.

The problem with scientific opinion today in general (as i see it), is that people cling to a one sided view that disregards anything else. Isn't it strange that the most current and revolutionary discoveries within science reflect exactly what was prophesied by occult's and warned by religions? I think people are too scared to consider the truth about the spiritual realm. Because believing that would require the belief that your consciousness can exist outside of your brain, and your brain simply serves as a processor to translate your conscious awareness into a division of senses. It's remarkably difficult for some to take into consideration every ideology and conceptualize the truth in it's total breadth. As a result, is easy to decipher who cares more about the truth or their egotistical programming that they can't let go of. A person who only believes an exclusive branch of "truth" such as religion is just as ignorant as one who only considers science. It's also worth mentioning that an individual who is unwilling to consider an opposing argument does so as a result of not having the ability to actually disprove the opposing ideology. (because they don't even understand their own)

Making claims based on a theoretical ideology you can't prove or understand fully is just as ignorant as making claims based on the bible. And just because there is some truth in science, that does not imply everything science encompasses is true. Like assuming the earth is a sphere for example seems like a logical decision, yet the fact that there has been no legitimate pictures of the earth from space since 40 years ago makes that decision's validity a variable. Not to mention that picture was potentially faked as well. If something as simple as the shape of the earth we live on is hidden from the masses, then who's to say there isn't a groundbreaking explanation that would prove the truth once in for all. Unfortunately, the only way to find out would require letting go of current beliefs (science/religion), which is profoundly difficult for people who don't want their fragile ideology threatened by other possibilities.

To make this point as simple as possible, people who evolve their intellect while referencing their current understanding to a constant (ideology such as science), will not have the big picture perspective someone who uses a variable as their reference point will. (simply meaning that if you see your beliefs as something that can be changed, or evolved you will consider more of the story than if you were to see your beliefs as something concretely true and unchangeable.) Alternatively, the ignorant person serves their brain as the (constant) while the intelligent person's brain serves their consciousness (variable). This is important because the focus on spirituality is ancient, it is both science and religion, math and literally everything. The one constant which both religion and science share is god. Where religion began, science will end.

This all ties into the idea of: what is real? What your senses tell your consciousness? I'm sure you've all seen this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVro5wxqh4U

If you can't define real, then why would you blindly trust a belief system? if you don't understand it, then you believe it in a form of fear. Where you are controlled by the external, instead of the true function of consciousness, which has been proven by the double slit experiment. Physics proved that consciousness collapses the wave function of potential to the focus shaped by expectation. the belief that Awareness dictates reality is the truth, and the belief that reality dictates awareness is the fear of the truth. This is just my opinion, but not just my truth. Maybe some people just aren't ready to critically think.
Personally i think collective knowledge explains a lot more than a fraction of the collective. Similarly, using all of your brain instead of half gets you the whole truth instead of a division of it.
Btw, the bible has an ultimatum that is very relevant to this topic. The choice between the spiritual world or the material world. the 666 (material) or the 999 (spiritual). What would you choose?
Attachment 8997

This picture illustrates how the spiritual (consciousness) illuminates and gives life to the material (physical). Nothing exists unless you realize it.
Considering the source of this material world is the spiritual world, how far out would it be to assume that this material world we live in is "imagined" by the spiritual world?
The exact opposite of what "science" would tell you.