any thoughts?
Printable View
any thoughts?
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed".
Dreams themselves are not real, but imagined. Dreaming occurs in fact.
If you meant they are as real as real life, they are not, but might appear to be.
If you meant as real as our perception of real life is, then yes, they are real.
I think it depends on your definition of what is real. If real means within the realm of the five senses, then they are as real as non dream state. You can see, feel, hear, smell and taste in a dream. In fact reality too is all perceived "in the mind" just as a dream is. Think about this...if you therefore take away your 5 senses as your metric of reality, by what other definition does reality exist? For others it might, but not for you since you cannot perceive it. So I am moving in the direction of saying the dream realm is "real". I always thought the difference was that dreams are not persistant, but some experts in LDs claim to have persistant realms they visit. So reality seems to be somewhat hard to define.
If it exists, it is real. Love is real. One cannot see or tangibly feel love. But, it is real. An idea, any idea is real. Simply because another person has not experienced it or doesn't understand it, that doesn't make it any less real. If I imagine a purple ball on my bed, it may not be physically real. But, in my mind's eye and imagination, it is a reality. Just think about virtual reality.
As others have said it depends on your definition of real, so its a tricky question. Obviously dreams themselves and what we undergo each night are real, but imo the actual images, worlds etc. are not real a such. They aren't real in that they don't effect the real world, but then again dreams can make people move etc., ugh this is doing my head in lol.
At Christmas time, do you have a real tree, "no I have an imaginary one!"
I would say... it depends on your definition of "real". However, dreams are not physical in the same sense as waking reality. It mimics the material worlds and material experiences, but it is altogether a different state of reality. It may be under the influence of a metaphysical plane of existence and we may be experiencing different realities with our brain working as a hardware for the process, but dreams are still mysterious phenomena. Some say it's random electrical and chemical impulses of the brain, some say it's part of memory consolidation process, some believe there is more to it. I believe our brain is like a gaming console or a computer system. We can have client-side "dream" experiences as well as relationship that's like online server (metaphysical plane) to interact with external elements such as probably in the case of shared dreams, but our brain is the hardware and so it uses it's own resources to help us experience these realities and tried it's best to create elements from external information it receives.
A lot of sensible stuff said above. I'd just like to add this bit:
Whatever we consider "real" is what we perceive. Whether or not we perceive the same as other people do, is impossible to tell. If someone calls out "there is a red ball", and you think that there actually is a red ball, then you assume that both of you are referring to the same "reality". But it is in fact a leap of faith, because you have no way of knowing whether you are perceiving the same "reality".
The idea of an "objective reality" is attractive, and human beings have always (well, probably) based their lives on it. But it's still only a guess, and it may be completely wrong after all. We may in fact all be lines of code in a computer program, and our "objective reality" may be a fleeting moment in the execution of this program. For that matter, our world may be a screen-saver running on God's laptop, while s/he is out for a cup of coffee.
Reality is subjective - at least if we humans use the word. For God, other rules may apply.
So are dreams real? Well, no more, and no less, than everything else in this world.
I long ago stopped referring to "real life" to refer to experiences occurring in the waking state. There is the waking state, and the dreaming state, and both are real :P.
You gotta make a clear definition of "real" first. (Your definition) So we can answer accordingly.
Edit: This is what happens when you post before reading others' answers :upsidedown:
Are dreams real?
This seems a silly question to me. Of course dreams are real.
The dream world during NLD's is,to the dreamer, perfectly, unquestionably real; this is, after all, the place in which we exist, so it must be real.
Even with LD's, when we know this dreamy place is not, by our own experience, waking-life reality, we still tend to move through it as if it were real: even when we change things in the dream, we consider our actions godlike, rather than just shifting the given fiction a bit; when we harm DC's, many of us wonder if that was an okay thing to do; when we do things like flying (which can be hard sometimes as we fight a very real-feeling gravity that we know isn't present), we do so to defy the reality of the dream, and to explore a world that we know does not actually exist, yet there it is; and we get very excited when a dream seems "more real than reality," because we feel like we've created a reality that surpasses that of waking-life -- not imagery, but a reality.
When dreaming it's all real, at the time; so real that many of us also wake up assuming that it was real, that they were actually exploring other worlds, dimensions, or astral planes. Dreams, in terms of personal perception, probably outdo waking-life in the reality department regularly in the reality department.
If dreams were not real, to us, at the time of dreaming them, I really don't think we would spend so much time with them.
Definitions do not matter at all here, I think. What matters is our perception of the places we visit, the experiences we have, and the "fact" that our own perception proves them real is more than enough...just like waking-life, perhaps.
By real, i meant as real as waking life. In my perspective, this waking world is real because everyone in it believes in it, or in other words are asleep to it's non-reality. I've noticed that within a dream your perception of anything acts as the means to it's result. Alternatively, i've thought of dreams as another realm of perception, another world so to speak. Between which exists a veil, and it is there that senses are heightened to extreme extents. (if you've ever noticed sound gets a lot louder/brighter when you're about to fall asleep.) Once you cross the veil, you're on the other side and things become normal.
This other "world" imo is the fourth dimension of perception, whereas lucid dreams extent into the fifth. I think this is so because in dreams people are able to simultaneously perceive a potential of events ranging from the past, the present and/or future. Almost as if from different possible outcomes of events that could have/have happened irl. It's like exploring every possible outcome that could ever happen in any version of this reality just with the power of expectation/belief. (in the 4th dimension you can only view the past.)
Also, when you have a false awakening it can sometimes be just as realistic as real life, so how do you know you haven't had one every time you "wake up"?
"Historically-speaking, dreams of the dead are some of the earliest transcribed accounts of dream life. Aristotle mentioned them, as did Lucretius, in part to comment on the widespread folk psychology that the characters in people’s dreams actually seem to be the spirits of the departed."
just a quote from this http://dreamstudies.org/2009/10/29/v...orlds-is-thin/
Something about dreams seems more real to me than this "reality".
Well, I'd say everything, in whatever form, as long as we haven't 'made it up', is real.
But I guess what you were reffering to is, do our dreams exist somewhere else than our minds. I can't know for sure but...
I believe our dreaming world and 'waking' world is of the same sort. They both feel 100% real while we're in them.
Who knows; when we die we might look back on our life and it may seem blurry like a dream, and then once again, we're in a different "world/dream".
Maybe there are endless of these.
So, who's to say what's "real"
No matter how you dress it up, dreams are not real in the sense that they are imagined.
Would you go to a cinema and come out believing that what you saw was real?
We don't need to get all mystical about this. Real life has consequences that dreams do not. Try walking out in front of a real truck, and you are really dead. Do it in a dream and you wake up. If you truly mistake dreams for real life you need to be questioning your sanity. Yes, in the moment you may not be able to tell the difference, but there really is a difference.
Philosophical questions about whether all of life is a dream are all very well, but so far we can't prove any of that.
Saying that dreams are not real does not devalue them at all in my view.
They are what they are, a model of the real world that can be difficult to distinguish.
It is very true, that we cannot prove that all life is a dream. But it is equally true, that we cannot prove that it isn't.
The view that "physical reality" is "real", whereas dreams are not, is tenaciously held to by most people. But this is a position of habitude. It is neither based on logic, nor does it come with a proof of its correctness. At its heart lies faith. And there is nothing wrong with that. But there is also nothing wrong with taking the opposite position on faith.
I wouldn't be so quick to conclude that dreams are imaginary. Quantum physics says that people's imagination (expectation) dictates the result of potentials.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenspark
It's not sanity that's questionable when contemplating this topic. and if the dream world is a higher dimension of consciousness, then it explains the ability to avoid consequence by choosing a different current of events. I don't know if you've ever noticed, but whenever I make an opinion about something I am doing, whatever it was I intended always happens. (if truly believed/intended). For example, if you are snowboarding and you suddenly imagine falling, you will more than likely fall. If you imagine the latter, it will also happen.
When you die you lose all of your baggage (beliefs). In order to pass through the veil. Some say that when you sleep you die.
So in this perspective, dreams represent the realm of possibility, time and potential. Within this realm exists everything that could ever happen, the result of every choice.
Ultimately this "waking world" is just a montage of specific choices played and picked out from the infinite imagination realm (death/dream plane). Meaning that world is in a sense more real than this.
That's what i've concluded from everything i've learned regarding this topic.
If you ever get to the 5th dimension in lucid dreaming you'll notice that symbols there represent ideologies, that this world is akin to someone reading a book, and each letter representing a person. (being thought into 3d through imagination.
And after all, isn't it the reader, the viewer who ultimately makes a movie/book real? How do you know that's not whats going on right now? Daydreams are highly hypnotizing.
So when you watch a movie at the cinema, regardless of what you believe about it, the fact that you watched it made it real. Because it made you THINK of what it was portraying, it made you imagine it into existence. And i'm not talking about specific details being realized into solid matter. I'm talking about situations, chapters in a book for example influencing and collapsing the quantum formula which dictates our future.
And if you think this is all philosophical, i can prove it's not. With this one idea, you could understand pretty much everything going on in this collective reality.
Movies, books, programs of any sort influence reality at a quantum level.
here's some "proof" to get your attention to the very real significance of this.
Programmed event:
Battlefield 3, Paris mission, Nov 13, (released in 2011).
Realized event:
Paris attacks, Nov 13, 2015.
Here's another quick example to entertain your consideration:
"They Live (1988)- movie based on short story: "Eight O'clock in the morning"
The main character in the movie: Roddy Piper, died at 8 in the morning (irl) from a heart attack.
Original story quote from "eight o'clock in the morning": "He died of a heart attack at exactly eight o’clock."
Do you see the "coincidences" here? All of this was programmed and then realized by people's imaginations.
This is just my opinion, of course.
Strange coincidences are not proof. They come to our attention because they are strange, and people latch on to them forgetting that all the not strange non-coincidences really cancel out the ones we notice - it's just chance.
I agree that I can't prove to myself that all life is a dream or not, because my perception gets in the way, but as a collective, on the balance of probability, we can use scientific proof to do trials that show repeatable, predictable results. That is proof to an accepted level of probability error. In a dream, unpredictable things tend to happen that fail these criteria. One fail is proof of "not real".
I don't know why this seems to be taken like some form of blasphemy by some. It's amazing that dreams are not real but appear to be so real, or not. It makes them more special than real life because anything is possible.
I don't think it makes then any less special to know they are imagined.
Of course we are all entitled to our beliefs, but if you start confusing reality with dreams it can be bad news....
I usually think of it this way:
Waking life = external reality
Dreams = internal reality
Dreams are still very mysterious in a lot of ways, and while there is no "proof" of stuff like the dead being able to visit our dreams etc, they are still valid and interesting topics of discussion.
Scientists are not supposed to decide what "should" be true and false, they are supposed to be curious about the nature of reality and try to understand it, based on acceptable evidence.
That's why you see people like Stephen LaBerge and Robert Waggoner constantly ask themselves questions about the nature of dreams - that's the spirit of passionate scientists.
True, but they are also supposed to use the scientific method to sort the truth from mumbo-jumbo. I totally agree that all of us, including scientists, should be skeptical and question everything, but that includes not getting duped by pseudo-science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurelindo
You can use a loose definition of real, but then what is the opposite of real?
Real and imaginary seem to work well as opposites, and I struggle to think of a more apt imaginary than a dream.
Do I believe that dreams have any more depth than the result of one brain's imaginings? No. I don't believe in any mystical dimension, but there is plenty to marvel at when considering the truth.
As stated...it comes down to your definition of real. You obviously believe that "real" equates to your aprioi assumption that it is the physical dimension in which we live. That is fine, but by your definition no "near death" experience could ever be real, even if someone truly was ushered into the presence of God and had a conversation with Him (assuming there is a God for arguments sake). Because that didn't happen in the real world. I would contend that it would be "real" even if not within this dimension. I'm not meaning to argue...just pointing out that one has to be talking about the same definition of real.
I consider dreams to be real in the sense that they give us real, powerful emotions, and that they always mean something for our well-being.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenspark
I mean, if I experience a dream where I fly high above the clouds and then wake up with a strong feeling of exhilaration, then clearly I experienced real emotions In that dream.
And to me, the fact that we are aware as living beings during our dreams make them just as real from an experiential perspective as waking life, because we experience real feelings in them and can even learn things in them and practice certain skills in preparation for waking life.
Some people have even used lucid dreams to get rid of certain fears in waking life (like public speeches and airplanes), and there are even serious speculations that dreams could be used for physical healing by imagining healing substances in the dreams and expecting them to work on certain body parts - kind of like a powerful placebo effect.
And this could in fact work, because the placebo effect has been tested several times and turned out to have real effects.
Also, everything has been pseudo-science at some point.
General relativity would definitely count as pseudo-science a couple hundred years ago, and alchemy is sometimes considered a pseudo-science, even if it should deserve to be treated as real science, since it is based on the goal to turn metals into gold, which is basically just chemistry and the combination of elements.
Newton was an alchemist, by the way.
Apparently if you die in a dream you die irl. Dreams are just a different state of mind, the dmt state. and alchemy is real, pyramid structures generate elemental heat that can be used to turn metals into certain powders just by the shape of the pyramid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laurelindo
Well I have 'died' in a dream before, being shot in the side of the chest. The dream just faded to black and then I woke up, but my chest where I got shot did hurt for about 5 minutes afterwards, which I find fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by blizzardesigns
Dreams are defined as series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep.
Real is defined as actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
These series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a person's mind during sleep are actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. So dreams are real.
Note that all of this occurs in the mind, though. If the act of you dying comes across your mind while sleeping, it doesn't mean you actually die.
Dreams may not exist as physical objects, however they definitely exist in the sense that we experience them.
It would make no sense to claim that dreams are "not real", because this would imply that they don't actually happen, which they obviously do, and we obviously experience them and become affected by them on a very deep level.
We "exist" in dreams just as much as we exist in waking life, because in both states we experience complex emotions - the only difference is that waking life is an external state that is shared by several individuals, whereas dreams are internal private worlds.
A wonderful dream can be so fantastic that it can make you feel exhilarated for the rest of the day - especially if it is a lucid dream - so dreams are clearly a meaningful part of our lives.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenspark
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Voldmer
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenspark
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldenspark
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.
