Thread: What if?

I'm on board with Xei on this one. Except what he said about other people not being real because it is a dream. If this is a dream that means that every person in the world is you also. If you rape someone that's alright. But remember that it is urself that you are raping.

If this is a dream. Where is the dream control? Vaporizing clouds is one thing but why can't i fly? After all if it is the mind that sets the rules i should be able to fly.
I once wholeheartedly believed that i could jump out of my window and fly. I stepped down from the idea when i thought about the consequences. So maybe i really could fly, i just rationalized it too much. Or perhaps i just prevented an accidant from happening. Anyway i decided to walk outside and lift-off from there. I forgot my goal on the way there so nothing really happened.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Here's a case where I really want to agree with Xaq but I can't abide with the assertion of shared dreaming or disembodies spirits which is what would essentially be required (as far as I can tell) for the argument given to be valid.

Why not? If this is a dream then it means that every consious soul in the universe is a dream character of the dreamer. We are the ones experiencing the dream from the perception of our individual bodies. If we are the creation of the dreamer it means that we are a part of the dreamer (god) and essentially we are god and our individuality is an illusion. A very persistent one. But an illusion non-theless. no disembodied spirits neccesary

Who is going on about disembodied spirits?
As for mental effort. What takes more mental effort? Learning how to lucid dream or listening to what the scientists say about lucid dreams? In fact, it is the lucid dreamers who knew that lucid dreaming was possible, and happens all the time since the dawn of humanity, it was the scientists who didn't believe and needed proof. But the proof was in watching eye movements. The scientists never tried it for themselves to prove that it exists, the proof is not in the dreams themselves, but the eye movements. Scientists know 'about' lucid dreaming but the lucid dreamers know 'how' to dream. This is the real mental effort. Gaining dream control, nobody knows about this but lucid dreamers.

But as far as the OP goes... it is nothing more than a philosophy, not necessarily a reality, in which to live life by.

I'd start smoking pot again, err... for the first time, and then go back to sleep.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

As for mental effort. What takes more mental effort? Learning how to lucid dream or listening to what the scientists say about lucid dreams?

Strawman argument. I never said anything about "listening to what scientists say", I said understanding what scientists say and why they say it.

In fact, it is the lucid dreamers who knew that lucid dreaming was possible, and happens all the time since the dawn of humanity, it was the scientists who didn't believe and needed proof.

The lucid dreamers didn't know that it was possible unless they arrogantly assumed that there perceptions of reality are real. The scientists were acting responsibly by requiring that it be turned into a falsifiable prediction by extrapolating a prediction from it. Surely lucid dreamers of all people understand how deceptive our senses can be?

But the proof was in watching eye movements. The scientists never tried it for themselves to prove that it exists, the proof is not in the dreams themselves, but the eye movements. Scientists know 'about' lucid dreaming but the lucid dreamers know 'how' to dream.

Some scientists know both. At any rate, trying it for themselves wouldn't prove that it exists.

This is the real mental effort. Gaining dream control, nobody knows about this but lucid dreamers.

This is a real mental effort. Another real mental effort is dealing with the fact that my perceptions are not reality and taking the effort to find independent confirmation.

wasn't there some kind of test they did. and even proposed to einstein a long time ago that their scientific expiriments where influenced by their predictions. And that in quantum physics particles only take form when there is an observer to witness it? something like that. i'm gonna read up on it later i might get back to it. in either way, this is good evidence if it's real. just ignored

Except it's not real. There is zero evidence that the outcome of our experiments are influenced by our predictions. The outcomes of our experiments are influenced by which questions we ask and what order we ask them in. That's weird. Particles become "particles" when a measurement is made, regardless of if the measurement is made by a concious observer or not. This is repeatedly butchered by popular science writers that aren't physicsts. It goes back to the mathematician John Von Neuman. Bring back details for your accusations and I'll sort them out for you.

So , if i understand it correctly. A particle is basically everything/nothing until a measurement is made. (about what?) I'm not quite sure how a measurement can be made by a non-consious observer?? I guess a computer can somehow do that but surely whatever measurements it makes it's us humans that give meaning to it and observe the measurement.

IF i understood it correctly it leads me to believe it's not the act of observing that influences particles but more so the "meme"s that make up the worldview.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

So , if i understand it correctly. A particle is basically everything/nothing until a measurement is made. (about what?) I'm not quite sure how a measurement can be made by a non-consious observer?? I guess a computer can somehow do that but surely whatever measurements it makes it's us humans that give meaning to it and observe the measurement.

When a photon collides with an electron in an atom and raises it to a higher energy level, that's a measurement. There's nothing about it that fundamentally requires humans. When a dog sees something because a photon collided with an electron in one of his rods and sent an electrical impulse up a nerve, that's a measurement. Measurements are happening all the time. In what way are human minds necessary for this?

IF i understood it correctly it leads me to believe it's not the act of observing that influences particles but more so the "meme"s that make up the worldview.

No. The act of observing a particle definitely changes it. Specifically, whereas before we make a measurement, it's in a "superposition" of states, it picks exactly one of them to be in after we measure it. It is then in exactly that state. The act of measuring it in a state puts it in that state. It then evolves back out from that state. However, there's no reason to think that there's anything about consciousness that makes this happen or the fact that we predict the outcome of an experiment to be 50/50 makes that the outcome of the experiment.


But also, memes that makeup worldview are a huge part of things as well. F=ma is a definition, not a theorem after all.

Experiments are affected by expectations on a much different level, unrelated to quantum effects. If you are expecting a certain outcome and test for that outcome, then the answers that you are able to get can only be related to what you were expecting, typically either a positive or a negative answer in relation to the expectation. This leaves a whole set of possibilities that are not accounted for simply because they are unrelated to your expectations. You can only get the answers to the questions that you think to ask. The questions are dependent on your predictions/expectations.