http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=45132
Printable View
Thanks, Bonsay, that really is awesome. It might or might not work, but just the very fact that serious research is going in that direction is amazing.
Ah, thanks Alfy984 - as I said at the very start of this thread, I presumed there must have been a similar topic somewhere on the forum. I was just too lazy to hunt for it.
I just all the posts from the link you sent. There is a lot to think about. What are your own conclusions on the subject now you've had time to think about it all?
You shall never know until you wake up.
In the matrix, fundamental laws could be broken. Such is the case with lucid dreams. 'Reality' seems to be consistent, stable and bound by laws. It seems implausible to imagine that we are asleep now.
It is impossible to try to explain whether this life is just a dream or not. But one thing i do know that waking life is too similar to lucid dreaming to be a coincidence.
If u are really interested on the subject i would suggest reading Carlos Castenada. His writing are the only thing that has help me to further understand this world.
The knowledge required to grasp how this world works can not be explained with words it can only be experienced first hand. It is knowledge without words.
Hope this helps you on your journey.
Aren't we convinced from Descartes', "I think, therefore I am" treatise that we actually do exist, and have a consciousness that is more than just the musings of some other sentient being? I know that I have a consciousness that is more than just a manipulation of someone else, and that this reality does exist -- it's not just a "dream" or the invention of some other Super-Genius being. (You'll have to read Descartes' proof yourself if you don't believe me). There is a past, present, and a future. We can't describe "time" in a perfect way (it is beyond our understanding), but we know it exists. We know there is more than a present moment, because we can empirically prove that there is cause and effect beyond just this moment, and we have an intuitive understanding that this planet was here here one second ago, and may (probably) will be here one second from now.
Now, cause and effect, coincidence, the fabric of how all these things tie together, "purpose", destiny, what is thought... these are all metaphysical and philosophical discussions that are exciting to consider, with lots of different religious and philosphical explanations. I don't believe we will ever possess the brain or mind power to ever fully understand these things (in this life). What is the nature of time? Of the universe? Is it endless or finite? When did existence begin? How did the universe come to be, didn't something or someone have to create it? If that's true, how did that thing come to be? What is infinity? Is there a soul?
Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, man has just enough intelligence and insight to contemplate these questions, but not enough knowledge to ever figure them out! But isn't it enough to know that you DO exist, you DO have conscious thought, and that there is more out there than we know or understand, without completely understanding it? Even though as a Christian I have beliefs/answers for many of these metaphysical questions, I still could not possibly comprehend them all. For example, I cannot possibly understand God or where He came from.
By the way, I completely agree about coincidence (to a point) -- there are some things that are probably random, and others that are not! I flip a coin, is it "random" about whether it will be heads or tails? But we're real, and we know that.
ouch - I was really hoping we could avoid the g word. Let's please not go down that track or we'll get moved to the R/S section, which this thread is deliberately not in...
Descartes could have been wrong. He's human.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
if this is real then dreaming is real too... you get real feelings and real perceptions in dreams... you think in dreams therefor you are in dreams. but where are you really? if you can be in a foreign land inside your head in a dream it is very possible the same thing is happening in waking life. A human cell has consciousness and yet it is part of a larger body... who is to say we arnt the same way?
I don't think you can change the future, but that doesn't mean you don't have a role to play in it, and important decisions to make. What will be will be, but that doesn't mean you can't be great.
three and four,
I suspect you're right; we can't really comprehend what is going on - atleast intellectually, but I'm sure we're directly experiencing the totality of everything in ways we can't perceive in every moment and every thought.
I think if we look at the history of the universe, we see that it's all moving toward something. If you're deterministic, then that's something you ultimately will have had to come to terms with. If we can 'personify' (*giggle*) for a moment, would it be safe to say that subatomic particles could not have forseen the atom? And atoms the molecule? Could a molecule have predicted the stars? Stars begat planets, planets organic life, and organic life facilitated self-actualization (that's where the human story begins). It's safe to say this process hasn't suddenly stopped with our arrival, and nothing thus far in the universe has proved superfluous to this process, so it is the logical conclusion to suppose that we are a part of it. We are the legacy of the stars.
So what is it that we are manifesting that hasn't fully come into view yet? And I agree with Sagan, that man was great.
Read up on planetary consciousness and emergent complexity - it might interest you. Science has started dipping its toes into these waters usually reserved for philosophers and it's interesting to watch. Basically, we are that same way - whether we recognize it or not... and I'm just talking from a social standpoint right now. Also, another thing that might be interesting is the concept of the Noosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfy984
PaleRider
I'd say simply, no it isn't enough to know that we are, that we are here, experiencing. That's where we were before all this. This drive to question, to wonder, to doubt is one of our indelible traits. Descartes had some interesting thoughts, but he's just one in a long line, and not the end of it. It's not an accident you posses the ability to think, so you have to use it, and never come to rest on one answer as if any person could comprehend the truth of it all. You don't think about it to find an answer, you think about it to understand the question.
Whoa... Douglas Adams... he was onto something.
I'm hedging my bets on 42 now.
First of all - great thread, indeed. Lots of interesting posts to read here.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
About the square example - I think it's the other way around: first there was the idea of a perfect square, and then people came up with things like equal sides, degrees etc. Things that characterize this perfect shape but don't make it. When you visualize a square in your mind's eye, you don't use "reason" or anything, it just appears, you don't construct - you see.
Now about the original question: "If waking life is a dream, how could we really wake up?"
Sadly, I'm not going to say anything new. Why wake up? Master the dream itself. Because dreaming is very enjoyable, waking up would mean the end of it. True, it would probably bring along something totally new, but still.
One little way towards mastering this dream, I've found, is manipulating with words. Words are usually very important to people. They carry a certain energy and are used to mark certain things. By manipulating with words, one can influence all thoughts and by that - the perception and "decoding" of reality itself.
By that I mean this almost childish method of calling a hunting rifle, for example, an apple, and by observing it as an object that's made up of two parallel iron cylinders, some sort of a crescent-thing (a trigger :P) and a wooden end that looks like the end of a broom. You can apply this weird method on a lot of things and even phenomena. And, why not, maybe even sounds... And by doing so, pretty soon you will find that the world around you is changing. That your reality is changing.
Switch words with words
to create new worlds
I guess that it would probably still be toying with the one world you already live in. But hey - what isn't.
But I do have to say that it is a rather dreamy practice, so to speak. I guess you could live a pretty happy life calling sniper rifles "cherries" and seeing how "honey" is pouring out of dead soldiers. But such crude linguistic creativity might lead to isolation and, why not, insanity. Of course - you could always call isolation a "watermelon" and who wouldn't like to live in a watermelon...
Alright, enough of that :D
I guess, to me, waking up would be understanding the true nature of things, assuming such a thing exists.* To see that, which I would normally be interpreting in one way or another, in it's full glory.
* maybe it would be something that every living person on the planet would see as the same, irrespective of their mother tongue, their convictions, their beliefs...
Edit: also - great Youtube links given on the first page of this thread. I strongly advise everybody to check them out!
Interesting! It's like how both planets circle stars and electrons circle atoms. And the stars circle the galactic centre..etc etc..
It makes sense when you think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alfy984
SynapseSnap, I think I really agree with you overall. I guess I feel that the understanding of causality is more or less innate. Because of this, for many things people have, through history, drawn correct conclusions about the existence of the forces that tie things together (whether their explanations were accurate or not). For anything to exist, it must have come into being, and therefore must have a cause. Because of this I might have ignored one side of your point altogether.
I guess my only issue is that I do not believe everything is a mesh of connected things (you put it better, but I'm not going back to check now). At some level I believe everything originated from one event, but that it is inconceivable and unexplainable as of yet. Someone cast a die, and we are watching it unfold, so it is all related, but by now everything has branched out and is very much unconnected for all intents and purposes.
I just think people draw connections between things that are totally unrelated. They feel an effect, or observe some phenomenon and attribute it to something that in reality had only a loose association. It's easier to see this when I am constantly faced with media hocking phony wares and retarded ideas, and people eating it up. I'm just a pessimist and believe most people are either stupid, full of shit, or fucking nuts (if anyone gets the reference bless you).
edit/ man i hope any of that makes sense, and as for your example, i don't think it holds weight as in that situation one runs the risk of being hurt, but as far as seeking knowledge and understanding of our world, you can get by without
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
That guy is so cool; I listened to a whole radio show about him one time (I think on "This American Life"). His life was incredible; there has never been anyone as single-minded in pursuit of something as him.
Thanks for posting that.
Not trying to make this a religious discussion -- I guess my point was that whatever your philosophical or religious outlook (mine happens to include God; sorry no apologies there), there are certain truths that are universal, and certain things that are unknowable. A universal truth is that we do exist. You have raised some very interesting questions in this thread about the nature of that existence, how do we know what is real, and what is made up or dreams. I think I'm agreeing with you (if I have truly understood you) that we do seem to be more than just a bunch of protoplasm, without some larger order to the universe. Dreams are a reflection of our waking existence, but I do think we have ways of proving that our waking existence is real, and not the imagination of some other creature.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
SynapseSnap: You don't think about it to find an answer, you think about it to understand the question.
Excellent point, I could not agree more! You have really hit the nail on the head, it is the contemplation of these questions that brings insight. We already know we're not going to magically stumble upon some answer to the questions raised in this thread!
Ah, yes, Descartes was human, with human fallabilities. But the crux of his statement, "I think therefore I am" is very nearly (or perhaps completely) infallible if you really contemplate it. It's like someone saying "1 + 1 = 2." They may have human frailties, but that statement is the absolute truth regardless. If you start with the premise that maybe I don't really exist, maybe I'm just a figment of some super genius' imagination, you are left with the inescapable conclusion that I am thinking this. And once you conclude that you are thinking, and therefore exist in some form or another, it's not hard (at least for me) to determine that my consciousness in waking life is "real." It's fascinating to contemplate that maybe we have waking and dream life backwards, but deep down, don't we all just feel like we know the difference? And come to think of it, how can we be wrong about it? After all, what defines real vs. unreal, or wrong vs. right? It could all be seen as relative, couldn't it? That is, why are my waking thoughts and existence any more valid or important than my dream thoughts and existence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy Paradox
I choose to believe that existence precedes consciousness, but thats just me. Whatever though, there are holes in the premises put forward by any philosopher. Descartes has had his critics, existentialists have had theirs, the same can be said of any philosopher. I just think it is unfair to say that any philosophical statement is infallible, it is all a matter of opinion.
Thanks, PJ, for your very clear example of what you mean about reason and its uses. I think I now understand you, and pretty much agree with what you are saying: it’s true that reason can take us out of the moment. It’s also true that there is such a thing as too much reason: in many cases we’d be better off to just sit back and enjoy the music!
You write that reason is our best tool for understanding physical reality, and of course you are right. However, did you purposely say “physical” reality only? I would say that reason is also pretty much our best tool for figuring out more philosophical questions as well. Would you agree to this?
I guess I’m making a point of defending reason as much as is possible. It is too often left aside to allow “leaps of faith”, and once that happens, well, the door is open to just about anything, including sloppy logic and fuzzy fantasies. You know, stuff like that. ;)
I came across this article this morning, which is directly related to what we’re talking about. Stephen Hawking explains some of this thoughts:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/26/scihawk126.xml&page=1
Waking life may or may not be a dream, but it now strikes me that it certainly has a lot of dreamlike qualities:
It looks like the desk I’m working at is solid. However, it’s made of atoms which in fact are made up of 99.9999999999999 per cent empty space (note: this figure is quoted from a science article, I didn’t invent it). Moreover, quantum physics tells us that atoms are made up of subatomic particles which are constantly popping in and out of existence. So what looks like a desk is in fact a sort of cloud which is partly there, but partly not. Douglas Adams-type humor indeed.
This really blows my mind. What I considered to be a solid desk is in fact... well, what is it in fact? It’s certainly not what I perceived it to be. So much for the physical world, which now definitely seems sort of... dreamlike.
But I suppose that my conclusion at this stage isn’t that the desk isn’t “real” – as it certainly feels that way (and can be used as if it were). My conclusion would be that what we call “reality” is more of a flux than we previously thought. A sort of illusion, even.
Descartes might have said: “Bonjour again, after having proved that I exist, I shall now prove that this desk exists: I sit at this desk, therefore it is”. Fine, but I would have been more impressed had he said: “I sit at this desk, knowing it’s is 99.9999999999999 per cent empty space, and that the rest is flicking in and out of existence”.
Strangely, I feel it’s a relief to know that I myself am made up of 99.9999999999999 per cent empty space and that the rest of me is flicking in and out of existence. In fact, if I really consider this and do my best to “know” it, I find it side-splittingly funny. How much more dreamlike can things get? Is there a difference between a dream and something as dreamlike as this?
But it gets even better! After having exposed physical solidity as a hoax, physicists are now undermining the way in which we see time.
PaleRider, your write “We can't describe "time" in a perfect way (it is beyond our understanding), but we know it exists.” Really? The following physicists, (as well as the Trafalmadorians), might not agree:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/19/scitime119.xml
So the question is, now that we know that “reality” is in fact dreamlike, what do we do? (For the record: I’m not leaning towards the idea that reality is in fact the dream of some sort of superbeing – that just strikes me as way too simplistic).
SourCherryBoy, I think I’ll go with your idea: “Why wake up? Master the dream”. “Waking up would be understanding the true nature of things” – yes, I like that idea a lot, and it sounds like the right thing to aim for. Getting closer to a better understanding of “the true nature of things” is certainly one of my aims.
And as Who I am said: “Learning that the fabric and substance of "reality", is basically the same as dreams, will help you master reality”. So I think we’re sort of on the right track...
(By the way, SCB, interesting concept about changing the names of things, I’m still thinking about that one!).
LucidFlanders said: “Die. If we are still there we are awake, if we are not still there then we never existed in the first place.” I agree, LF, and I know that death is on its way (but not too fast, I hope), so that might be an insightful moment, or not. But I’m not so impatient to get the answer that way that I’ll jump out the window in the next few minutes. :)
Alfy984 – I have a bunch of Castaneda books lying about, and I tried reading several of them, but for some reason I got bored each time. Sorry – I don’t mean to attack an author that you obviously care about – I’m just saying that he doesn’t seem to work for me.
MrBeelzy, you say: “I choose to believe that existence precedes consciousness, but thats just me”. What if they were in fact both one and the same?
I really hope you find the articles as interesting as I did.
Interesting article three and four, thanks for providing the link! The concept of time is indeed fascinating, and obviously still very much unsettled among even today's physicists and others. I think my first statement is demonstrated to be true -- notably, that we can't even seem to define or describe what time is. The other part of my statement, about being sure it exists: I should have been more precise, to say that we all seem to instinctively and intuitively "know" that we age, things change, there is entropy, etc. -- we understand the basic concept of time most have in their normal experience, of seconds and minutes passing on a clock. Of course, our intuition and instincts have been shown many times to be wrong, hence the nature of your original questions! It's only been about a century since Einstein noted that time is NOT constant, contrary to our intuition and experience. It is clear to me that understanding the nature of time, and of reality in general, will be a long time coming, if ever -- but that doesn't mean we should stop trying, and I hope you will keep asking these questions!Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four;711607
[FONT=Arial
I think "time" and "reality" and "existence" are some of those man-made concepts for convenience, kind of like chicken nuggets :)
Those are the deepest videos I have seen in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Astrius
I did say "physical reality" for a reason. I have come to believe that there is much more to reality than physical. I am also coming to believe that the more we try to apply the tools for physical reality to learning about what might be termed spiritual reality, the crazier it gets. It is, it increasingly seems to me, an entirely ill-suited tool for the task.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Take those "coincidences" you are increasingly noting in your life. You KNOW what you've experienced... yet trying to apply reason to them in order to translate them into a form where they can be conveyed to another person who will be using reason to try to understand what you are saying is difficult. Trying to use reason to understand these experiences will just drive you nuts.
As an example, I've had some very real spiritual experiences in my life. I KNOW they happened, and I know they are real. I also know that it is utterly impossible for me to convince anybody else. It is almost like bringing reason to bear on these experiences collapses them into absurdity... but they are not absurd. They only become absurd when translated and conveyed. An analogy to quantum mechanics would be the observation collapsing a probability wave.
I think this is one of the reasons music appeals to me and to most of us so much. It is an alternate language capable of conveying many of those things that reason fails to be a suitable tool for understanding - thinks like love and awe, to pick just a couple.
I have come to believe it is a mistake to try to apply reason to all human experience - a mistake I've made and been very insistent upon at times in my life. There is MUCH more to experience than those things reason can be successfully applied to. Insisting on only acknowledging those experiences where reason can be used as a tool in comprehension is crippling.
We are entirely capable of learning without reason. We can know what happens without understanding why or how. We know we are conscious, for example. Good luck applying reason in explaining why or how.
Hi PJ,
Yes, I suspected you’d deliberately said physical reality! I agree that reason is not always our best tool. “Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas”, (“the heart has its reasons of which reason knows not”) , for example. How indeed could we use reason as a tool for evaluating love, music, or “the spiritual”. However...
I often wonder how people with far less access to information than we have in the West today would deal with having regular, spontaneous, powerful lucid dreams. Especially spontaneous WILDs that start with them having the impression they are being ripped from their own beds in the middle of the night, finding “themselves” hovering in their bedroom (or cave, or hut, or whatever)*. Hey, this can be scary enough even when you know exactly what a WILD is because you read all about it in EWOLD...
So, how would that person feel, if night after night he finds himself hovering around like this? I’m pretty sure he’d give it a spiritual meaning, and believe that applying reason was pointless (or think he’d gone mad...).
And yet, along comes Stephen LaBerge, applies reason to all of this, and hey presto we have EWOLD, DV and thousands of yous and mes all falling asleep counting!
I guess what I’m saying is that whatever happens to us, we should not give up trying to apply reason to it – at the risk then having to dismantle romantic constructions built up around events that can also feed our wishful thinking, social conditioning, or pre-established patterns. You know?
*I suspect that a lot of people who report being abducted by aliens are in fact having spontaneous WILDs, and are never really leaving the comfort of their own brain.
Thanks for your comments, PaleRider :)
I do not disagree with you here at all. My problem was the attempt to apply reason to everything, and rejecting anything that reason could not handle.
Who is to say for sure that our lucid dreams AREN'T spiritual encounters/experiences? We have theories, and a lot of them. Some are better supported than others by scientific fact, but none can even come close to addressing consciousness itself, let alone what our consciousness really does when our bodies sleep.
The models we have are useful so long as they are not limiting. I'm especially fond of the Schema model of dreaming that LaBerge exposited. It isn't the end-all though, not by any stretch.
Reason is just grand until it becomes a limit. To boil down what I'm saying into its essence; there is much more to experience in life than what reason will translate.
What about DC's that make no sense in how they talk? how can that be another being? wont they make sense? i'm still intrested in how awareness happens in dreams, and how you can become more aware (LD). Slip out of "so called" consciousness, and awareness takes over. Unless you mean the ones who make sense are the encounters, which means the rest is all in the brain.