On consciousness, dreams and reality

[psy]

The quotation "I think, therefore I am" - I think Descartes, the founder of the new rationalism that is the base of our modern world view said that - has one fatal flaw: It assumes there is an "I" that thinks and denies that the "I" may be just a result of something thinking. I would change that sentence to: It is conscious, therefore I am subject to the illusion of being. Is there an outside (physical) world to perceive ("reality") and misperceive ("halluzination") or is the outside world an expression of consciousness? If the latter, can you change it? But yes, you can change it: Take a hammer and hit an egg, what happens? Is the broken egg a perception of something in the outside world or is it an expression of your intention to change your consciousness? That question is impossible to answer. Then why is our concept of the world that of the perception of an outside world? What is a dream? The modern common perception claims, that dreams is rather useless noise of a brain in stand-by mode. Since when? Since science and productivity became an impellent element of our civilisation, where science is nothing more than a tool of productivity. It is not able to explain even the most simple of events. All science manages to do is to describe perceived behavior and extrapolate it into predictions. Science is a collection of mostly but not fully interconnected theoretic systems that can only be "proven" within its own confinements, based on unproven axioms, rooted within the explicitely human way of logical thinking. To believe in science to give the answers to our most fundamental questions (or any answer at all) would be in no way more (or less) reasonable than asking a stone idol. Even if it does pretend otherwise, science is a modern religion with its own rituals and magic procedures. A tool, a crutch. So what is a dream then? It is a form of reality equal to any other that we can touch. If it's equal, then why can't you remember most of it when "awake"? Counterquestion: If the "waking reality" is so important, then why can't you remember most of it in the "dream reality"? So what makes us think that dreams are less relevant? Is it their inconsistency? Or are we just unable to build things permanently within the dream reality? Yet we seem to have so much more freedom in the dream reality. Or is it because we enter the dream reality through the gate of sleep? But on the other hand we enter waking reality through the gate of waking, or to be more precise: We believe that our body wakes up. And what happens to our dream body? Does it not see, hear and feel? I could go on with this endlessly, but there's no point in it. My point is: Whatever reality you may be in, it's all part of the big joke. There is no answer, there is no truth, there is not even some kind of secret about it. I don't want to give a specific message, but if you want a positive one: The world is still the same magic place it was when you were a child. The negative one: Everything you learned since then has no meaning. You completely wasted your time. There is still time to change.

[ChaybaChayba]

If everything you learned has no meaning, howcome you posted this stuff you learned from Descartes? Apparently, it does have a lot of meaning to you! Anyway I think its a very interesting topic too. I think about it in the same lines like you do. But what do you mean by its all a big joke and there still time to change? Time to change what? Everything changes always, thats the only constant in this world..

[Icelus]

If I doubt, "I [must] think, therefore I am." Descartes did not postulate the "I". He came to it based on philosophical reasoning. Whether this world or anything we perceive is an illusion is irrelevant. Perhaps, our thoughts are guided, but they still exist. Furthermore, what is reality (dreams or not) other than a collection of perceptions? I agree, somewhat, with your perception of science. That said, it is a guide for rational thought in an irrational world. We try to peg stuff with "facts" as a method of understanding it. That does not make it false, but like any "facts", they have to be true and stand the test of time. Now, when it comes to dreaming itself, science has actually answered many of the questions that you asked. For example, the reason we do not remember is because of the unusual brain activity during sleep, which actually derails short term memory and logic. Long term memory does bleed into dreams; however, without logic it becomes vastly useless (except for learning and things like that). I agree with your primary point. Things do appear to all be futile. I am religious, but as a cynic, I cannot summarize any sort of meaning. I resign myself to the idea that it is too big to understand. If I didn't, I fear I might commit suicide. What is this change to which you refer? How can one do this?

[psy]

If I doubt, "I [must] think, therefore I am." Descartes did not postulate the "I". It was part of his primary axiom, wasn't it? So how could he not have postulated it? He came to it based on philosophical reasoning. That's another mistake he made: He postulated reason and logic to derive his cognitions and formulated them in human language. Whether this world or anything we perceive is an illusion is irrelevant. Fully agreed. Of course that implies that we and life are irrelevant as well. Perhaps, our thoughts are guided, but they still exist. Furthermore, what is reality (dreams or not) other than a collection of perceptions? That's a question without final answer. I agree, somewhat, with your perception of science. That said, it is a guide for rational thought in an irrational world. We try to peg stuff with "facts" as a method of understanding it. That does not make it false, but like any "facts", they have to be true and stand the test of time. There's no "true" and time does not verify things, humans do. Now, when it comes to dreaming itself, science has actually answered many of the questions that you asked. I can answer any question you ask me as well. I'm sure you can too. For example, the reason we do not remember is because of the unusual brain activity during sleep, which actually derails short term memory and logic. Long term memory does bleed into dreams; however, without logic it becomes vastly useless (except for learning and things like that). That are descriptions of perceptions and purely empirically imposed cause-effect reasoning, not explanations. As I clearly said, science is unable to explain. What is this change to which you refer? How can one do this? Let go.

[Shady]

Well, im not "super deep" or anything, but I to have just had some weird thoughts lately about life and such, way to lazy to attempt to make it into a single post on the forums atm, maybe when i get home from work? lol But at the end of the day, life is what you make it to be. Unfortunately I dont think I'll ever really know why it is the way it is. The one thing I think we can all agree on is no harm done by trying to figure it out, and opening your mind to new possibilities or idea's can only get us further. Science is an invention of man (And Women ) So to be honest I do not think it will ever give us all the answers, but it can put to test many of our theories. Science is very often an answer to a question, but the ability to ask or perceive these thoughts is what progresses our technology and minds, and each step forward is a bit closer. I don't think dreams are just random noise in our heads while we sleep, I think it gives us the opportunity to go back to square one, and just explore and learn, and just... be. Its basically life without the physical laws, reality inside a void of imagination.. no limits. Its incredible to think of what the mind is capable of when it has room to grow. Lucid Dreaming alone has just.. amazed me for the simple fact that I never imagined it to be to damn real, but then again I guess I did

[Icelus]

It was part of his primary axiom, wasn't it? So how could he not have postulated it? Exactly, it is part of his axiom. It is a self-evident truth, not just an assumption for no other purpose than a new philosophical theory. For him to simply postulate (assume) it is a truth went against his very philosophy. That's another mistake he made: He postulated reason and logic to derive his cognitions and formulated them in human language. He came to his conclusions based on reason and logic, he did just assume anything. Well, actually, one could say he assumed his second axiom, but we are strictly talking about the first one right now! Fully agreed. Of course that implies that we and life are irrelevant as well. I think I have already established that I begrudgingly agree >.> There's no "true" and time does not verify things, humans do. The test of time verifies all, we are but workers within that fabric of time trying to solidify our bold statements and theories. I can answer any question you ask me as well. I'm sure you can too. Glad we made that clear =P That are descriptions of perceptions and purely empirically imposed cause-effect reasoning, Hey, that's what science is all about right? Trying to figure out the cause and effect based on empirical data =) not explanations. So, you are looking for an answer behind the answer? Why are things like they are? Science happens (maybe fruitlessly) to offer answers for things like that too. For example, evolution might be an answer to why something works the way it does. Then I guess you could go a step further and ask why evolution works the way it does. I suppose it is a never-ending cycle, right? We could go back to the medieval days and answer, "Because of God and other divine elements." Let go. Of what? Science? Reason? Why let go? What will this change in the long run?

[psy]

If everything you learned has no meaning, howcome you posted this stuff you learned from Descartes? Apparently, it does have a lot of meaning to you! That quotation just posed a nice introduction I thought. Anyway I think its a very interesting topic too. I think about it in the same lines like you do. But what do you mean by its all a big joke and there still time to change? Time to change what? Everything changes always, thats the only constant in this world.. Just accept it then and laugh about it.

[Bonsay]

Just accept it then and laugh about it. So you're saying we should become like buddhist monks or something ?

[psy]

So you're saying we should become like buddhist monks or something ? No, I am not a Buddhist and I do not have any religion I could stick a label to. Above all I don't say you should do anything. Only because you have the potential does not mean you should use it.

[george]

There is meaning in things to do with personal development. Personality seems to be the same in your dream body and your waking body, conditioning your experiences in both. I agree with your arguments about the reality, or solidness of our waking life. If this perspective would be fully realized, it would definitely make our lives more happy.

[crumpet]

but your mindset changes your reality... so it doesn't matter if anythings real because you percieve it as real which makes it real!!! follow the circle of thought back to your mindset and see where it can lead...

[Xei]

I don't think reality is a construction of consciousness. One thing I do believe is that the world as we see it is a delusion. Macroscopic objects, for example, are actually just empty space mostly, interacting with light and repelling other objects. But I don't think that's what you're saying, is it? You're saying that consciousness has created everything we see, and that there is no objective reality. Well, I don't think so. Why would our consciousness have made the world like this? It is rather bland in many respects, with lots of junk. There are also things which are unknown to us, absent from our consciousnesses, which later enter our lives and surprise us; this seems incompatible with the idea that everything we see is a manifestation of our consciousness. Also there is a mathematical simplicity and beauty to the world which to me suggests that it has an existence of its own. The main problem I really have with this is... where would our consciousness have 'come from' without an objective reality in which to be? Make your argument by saying that 'all logic is a delusion' if you will, but that does not wash with me, you cannot simply conjure up the invincible retort of 'all arguments are wrong because there is no logic'. I have faith in pure logic if nothing else.