Thread: Since the Late 1950's

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are welcome. You made me remember questions I asked long ago.

We all do move along at our own paces. One thing that has developed for me over the last couple of years is quite a bit of patience.

"Have I caught your interest?"

So far no. Curiosity yes, but not interest. Having spent a number of recent years on the net looking for someone has made me quite a piece of jade.

You poor thing. Rule 30 probably didn't help much, either, huh? But it's okay. I'd never let you down.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

What I found is that one can, like being awake, control one's responses to the environment, however, contol of the environment itself is either very difficult or in many cases was not possible. Secondly, when I went into state to see if I could use the state to practice math in, instead I was tested.
I will say this, one of the best experiences in state is listening to music, so beautiful its not even discribable.

Well what do you consider control. In my very first LD I was able to make a bus drive into my field of view from no where through will alone. No one on this board has considered that an exceptional feat.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

nor do I believe in life after death.

What do you believe about death?

What do I believe about death? Nothing at all.

About the bus---having some desire in lucid dreamstate accomplished is not the same as having control over the environment itself. You certainly would not say that if you asked your mom for a cookie and she gave you one that you have control over your mom. I use to have entire dream segments repeated, so that I could change my response--to see what it felt like, for example, to be a victor and then the vanquished. However, this is the distinction. I am aware that I effect my movements and responses, how the rest is done, I am not aware of--therefore, if I don't know how that is done, how can I possibly claim I did it? That is absurd.

If one does not know how human will is attained, I suppose it is quite natural to confuse the acquisition of something desired for an expression of human will, however, these errors in judgment often lead to self-flattery, self-importance, which are in fact only illusions.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

About the bus---having some desire in lucid dreamstate accomplished is not the same as having control over the environment itself. You certainly would not say that if you asked your mom for a cookie and she gave you one that you have control over your mom. I use to have entire dream segments repeated, so that I could change my response--to see what it felt like, for example, to be a victor and then the vanquished. However, this is the distinction. I am aware that I effect my movements and responses, how the rest is done, I am not aware of--therefore, if I don't know how that is done, how can I possibly claim I did it? That is absurd.

If one does not know how human will is attained, I suppose it is quite natural to confuse the acquisition of something desired for an expression of human will, however, these errors in judgment often lead to self-flattery, self-importance, which are in fact only illusions.

I wouldn't claim that I control my mom when she brings me a cookie because she's a sentient being capable of deciding not to grant my request. If I pull out a remote and turn on the TV, I would be willing to say I have control of the TV. Perhaps it is not total control, the TV itself can break, the remote could run out of batteries, but the TV itself can not resist through its own will since it is inanimate and has no will.

Are you suggesting our dreams have a will of their own?

"One can react in the dream, but have little control of the environment of that dream."

What you're saying now sounds more like "one can never know if they truly control any aspect of their dreams, or if their dreams merely accommodate them".

Also by the same reasoning couldn't you argue that we don't know for sure if we really control our physical bodies? Couldn't we interject the possibility that our own muscles merely grant a request?

Its like this, if you learn of things that will happen in the future, and many of us have, and sometimes given informaton that we could not possibly have, in a dream, are you suggesting that you pulled it out of your butt?

I use Occam's razor. Since it is the function of the human mind to learn from experience in order to predict the results of human action such that it sustains and promotes the life of the body, then I would say that this is the definition of sentience.

Therefore, when you learn of things that could not possibly originate within concerning things you have no control over, use the definition. The surprising thing about it, this is exactly the test used in the Judeo-Christian Scripture to test if or if not God has informed you of anything. What a coincidence!!!!

The definition of sentience is used to test for sentience!!!

However, if you desire to think that by some form of magic your mind is so special it can do the impossible, that is your choice. Mine is to be rational.

One will notice that a logic system itself takes a number of givens to predict a results--do you think it is a coincidence that prophecy and logic are both covered by the same definition? And do you further suggest that the Plan stated in the Scripture, to bring man to a point that he knows judgment, which involves logic, to be just another coincidence?

I would have to say, from experience, that I have no power to see what is not--the future--at least not even near the magnitudes that I have seen, I would also say that I will it not. There is only one rational results.

I will tell you this--I was informed of one of my son's death, in a metaphor, even before I met the woman I had them with, I was even informed that it would be by negligence. Also, that I would take possession of my son from her quickly and would meet no resistence. As it was unfolding, I seen it, understood it, and knew I would not be resisted. I actually had to fly overnight to Texas when it all went down. Now, as I said, sometime the lessons are hard, very hard. When the events were happining, then I understood the meaning. This pattern is even explained in the Scripture, and the reason for it.

And do you think it is by chance that it is written that man is dead, until his mind comes to function? Even Plato told you that one, and explained it quiet well.

The resurrection of the dead is not magic, it is simply a biological fact.

I have found, all I have learned, very difficult, but undeniable.

I would say, however, to top it all off, is don't worry about it. If these are things you can someday understand, you will learn them. Keep using the lucid dream state, explore it, ask questions. There you will find a teacher. Until you abstract by your own experience the truth of the matter, you cannot believe, nor understand.

Was that for someone who posted before me?

I can't follow how you got onto that topic.

Excuse me, I thought you were talking about the will, whose will initiates dreams. My mistake, I see.

I'm sure that you are familiar with Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In this alegory he talks about the path to enlightenment. That it is difficult, and once you are "out of the cave" the light is painfull, so one would want to go back to the shadows that they are used to. Overtime your eyes would adjust and you would be able to see reality for what it really is, not just the shadows on the wall. He also says that one cannot start this journey without help, someone must release you from your binds in the cave, a teacher if you will. It was thought that philosophers should be the ones to rule the cave dwellers because they have seen where the shadows come from. Do you feel that you have gotten out of the cave? Or that Plato was right in his assumptions?

To people who refer to Plato's Allegory of the Cave I have always been amazed at their lack of comprehension as to what he meant. People love the allegory, it seems not because they understand it, but because it has a mystical quality to it. No matter how simply he explains it, they do not understand the truth of it. Plato discovered what true psychology is. Dialectic is, barring physical dysfunction, the only true form of psycho-therapy that is valid in terms of rational language use. Problem is, I have yet to find anyone who wrote with any understanding of Plato. The theory of forms is based on physical fact--thus it is not a theory at all--it is knowledge, it is wisdom. If you don't understand what I have already written about language then you did not understand Plato. And yes, this is one of the reasons I posted for a mate to write with, to bring dialectic, as Plato outlined it, into common understanding. It is this disparity between what to me is plain and obvious, which can be demonstrated step by step, and has never been developed, that makes me realize that the blindness of man is a real physical limitation. Put youself now, in the Allegory, as one who can see, just how do you explain color to a blind man? This is why I belive that Lucid Dreaming has to be part of the program---the teacher one has there, if their eyes are to be opened, only they can do it. Then, they will be able to comprehend dialectic, which is the only tools used when those eyes are open.

This is what I mean by resident structures in the mind. They must be in place, before understanding what judgment is, and how it is effected can be understood.

As you, people can point to the Alligory of the Cave, but the dialogs, the entire set, is explaining exactly what it means and no one gets it! What greater testimony of blindness can one have?

And Plato was right, you can put the whole of it, the whole of philosphy in one sentence. The whole of psychology, in one sentence--but people can not understand it.

Predication is the inverse function of abstraction.

Its that simple. It means saying what you see, that is why he used obvious examples. It means that the human mind, the way it processes language, must, if it it is functioning correctly, parallel physical reality.

The reason for the Allegory, is itself plain and simple. Each human body life sense system abstracts from the environment. This is why, in the Judeo-Christian scriptures you have several metaphor using the number 7, your body is like a tree of seven branches, each of them abstracting what it takes to live from the environment. Human judgment, what the Bible is about, is one branch that is being developed, but not yet functioning as it should. The ressurrection of the Dead, is the same metaphor as the Allegory of the Cave. Both are different ways of saying the same biological fact. If a human body life sense system is not functioning, one is, by definition, dead--no matter how animated the body is. It is expressed in slang as lights on, but nobody is home.

Plato was not teaching Socrates, he was not treaching Pythagorus. Plato, in order to write as well as he did, to me, could only mean that Plato himself was a prophet. His understanding was not borrowed, he had one of the greatest minds in history. But even my awe and respect for him will not stand in the way of my pointing out a mistake he made in the foundation of Geometry. He enumerated the founation, instead of defining it. This may be why the Delian Problem was never solved and may be why Geometry fragmented into mythical geometries called non-Euiclidean.

So then even in this text you were speaking metaphorically? I interpreted two meanings to what you said. One actualy and one metaphorical.

In response to the realistic meaning: Blind men who became blind after birth know what color is, and can see it in their dreams.

Blind men who were blind before birth on the other hand, do not dream in sight. Their dreams only consist of the other 4 senses they experience in real waking life. So in theory, whether using LD's or any other method it would be impossible to ever teach a blind man what color is to where he could fully comprehend.

Yes, the minds of some men cannot be opened. Even Christ told you this when he said the poor will always be with you.

Don't worry about what I said. Just keep working on Lucid dreaming.

If your reffering to me im humbly waiting for you to do the opening. As far as the metaphoric reference that i get out of it, you are saying some people spend their whole lives in the dark in ignorance of the light? That some people won't accept nor give a second thought to anything out of the norm. Is that close? If not, then explain what the meaning is. What do you mean by some minds can not be opened? Opened to what?

It is not just some, I am afraid. You see, before man was put a Book. It is actually a psychological test of the functioning of the human mind. It is written in that Book that someday man will start to see it, and everything written about it will be nothing. It is quite an incredible work.

Reasoning is a craft, and like any craft it takes a certain amount of "understanding" to master. You can teach two people the same craft--its mechanics, one will say, I have no idea what to build, the other will make a monument that lasts for centuries. That is just the facts of life.

Or again, take a rubber band. One will break it, another will make a powered child's toy from it. I cannot change that.

In my experience I see others labor over detailed plans for a piece of furniture trying to build that piece, yet I throw pre drawn plans aside jot down a stick drawing with a very few measurements and seeimingly effortlessly produce a really fine piece of furniture "off the top of my head".

Same hold true for building something mechanical or restoring a piece of machinery. I "see" the end product before it is ever started upon. Its always been that way even since childhood.

Is this an indication of such presence of reasoning craft as you are speaking of?

If so, then there is more that can be than just simply using what is there right? Such "craft" can be cultivated for even more?

Some people are very good at visualizing in the mind. Often when I make things, its the same way, its in the head. I remember when I was a kid, and my mom would want to rearrange furniture, she would want something somewhere, and I would say, can't you see it wont fit? Nope, she has to have it put there to see.

Its the same when you take things apart and put them together, a lot of people just cannot remember the sequence.

i wonder if the ability to prozess information will make us, some day, happy... that you are, as you should knew