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.

[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.

[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]

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? Not really. Science can not give an answer to "why"-questions, only to "how"-questions. Yes, I'm still looking for answers, but in a different way. I'm not pursuing them, I just wait for them to come to me and indeed, sometimes that happens. I couldn't explain or even communicate them to you though. Language and reason is not capable to transport that kind of information. We could go back to the medieval days and answer, "Because of God and other divine elements." That's as good as anything else. We didn't really make progress, we just replaced one belief with another. Of what? Science? Reason? Why let go? What will this change in the long run? You decide.

[Icelus]

Not really. Science can not give an answer to "why"-questions, only to "how"-questions. "Why"-questions ask the reason/purpose/cause of something. I would say that science does answer that time-to-time. Even if the answer is composed as a series of mechanisms that create the process, it is still a reason or cause. No matter, I think I understand what you are getting at. Science only answers superficial questions. Where science ends, philosophy and religion pick up. I couldn't explain or even communicate them to you though. Language and reason is not capable to transport that kind of information. You could try. I am quite interested in what you have to say. Don't create artificial limitations. Perhaps, language and reason cannot convey the intricacies of them, but it should be able to act as a guiding point to illuminate the minds of others. You decide. You know, you are being really cryptic <.< >.>

[Oneironaut Zero]

*Moved to Philosophy* I may add my own thoughts on this, later.

[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.

[psy]

You could try. I am quite interested in what you have to say. Don't create artificial limitations. Perhaps, language and reason cannot convey the intricacies of them, but it should be able to act as a guiding point to illuminate the minds of others. Some things can not be said, just experienced. You would never know a taste or color if I explained them with words. You also cannot describe a taste by its chemicals and you cannot describe a color by its frequency. One has to taste or see it, there is no other way to understand. That is the nature of transcendence. It is an experience far beyond reason and logic. I can't even tell you how to make that kind of experience and the only thing that I can do is to increase the mere chance of their occurence by giving them space. And even then it's your choice what to make of it. You know, you are being really cryptic <.< >.> Sorry, I can't help it.

[psy]

"Why"-questions ask the reason/purpose/cause of something. I would say that science does answer that time-to-time. Even if the answer is composed as a series of mechanisms that create the process, it is still a reason or cause. Do things have a cause? Do things happen as a sequence of connected events that present a point in time? Is that really the nature of the world? It is more likely that cause and effect, even time is just a construct of the human mind. We are so very limited and yet we tend to think that we can explain the nature of things based on our perception and reasoning. We can not even imagine what lies beyond. It is impossible for our mind to imagine a world without time or causes. Reason is not a way to understand the world, it is a tool to survive, that's all. If you really want to see, you have to remove your eyes, if you really want to understand, you have to stop thinking and if you really want to recognize yourself, you have to kill the ego. When there's nothing left, all that remains is the truth. Think about it. This cannot be discussed.

[Icelus]

Some things can not be said, just experienced. You would never know a taste or color if I explained them with words. It is true that one can never know it based on a description alone. One can imagine (well maybe not so much a color). There are words to describe a taste for example; of course, we are not talking about something so mundane. We are talking about transcendental experiences and answers. I agree that you can't provide reason to it, but I think you could convey minor aspects of these experiences. Language is but one color on a palette; it too provides life to the canvas. However, if you say you cannot, I suppose you can't. I will accept that. Do things have a cause? Do things happen as a sequence of connected events that present a point in time? Is that really the nature of the world? As man knows it now, yes. It is more likely that cause and effect, even time is just a construct of the human mind. Indeed. Is it not possible that everything is just a construct of the human mind? I include, yet not limit, the selection to all experiences, time, and space itself. This would envelope any transcendental experiences as well. It is all nothing. In that view, these experiences you refer to are as meaningless as the world around us. Reason is not a way to understand the world, it is a tool to survive, that's all. I disagree. Reason has helped us survive, yes, but it is not simply a tool for survival alone. Historically, it found its wings from movements - departures from the typical views/beliefs. It was a vessel for the intellectual minds from long ago. I am not saying our reason and logic are right. I am saying that it is one way of many to understand the world and universe in which we live. If you really want to see, you have to remove your eyes, if you really want to understand, you have to stop thinking and if you really want to recognize yourself, you have to kill the ego. When there's nothing left, all that remains is the truth. Think about it. This cannot be discussed. Perhaps, but is not the truth meaningless as well? You also said in your first post: there is no truth I suppose this still remains consistent with another excerpt from your first post: [Dreams are] a form of reality equal to any other that we can touch.

[psy]

As man knows it now, yes. I know many lies. Indeed. Is it not possible that everything is just a construct of the human mind? I include, yet not limit, the selection to all experiences, time, and space itself. This would envelope any transcendental experiences as well. It is all nothing. Why stop there? If everything is a contruct of the human mind, does that not include the human mind? If the human mind is a construct of the human mind according to logics of sequence and cause, it would be necessary for the human mind to exist to create itself. That's what reason would call a paradoxon. If a paradoxon can be true, how can reason be true at the same time? In that view, these experiences you refer to are as meaningless as the world around us. And if they simply are meaningless out of the egocentric context? Meaning is a human appraisal. There is no meaning outside the direct human context... none we would understand at least. I disagree. Reason has helped us survive, yes, but it is not simply a tool for survival alone. Historically, it found its wings from movements - departures from the typical views/beliefs. It was a vessel for the intellectual minds from long ago. I am not saying our reason and logic are right. I am saying that it is one way of many to understand the world and universe in which we live. Reason is the extended version of an ape using a stone to crush a coconut shell. Besides, we humans are not really acting reasonable. We mostly act first, then we try to reason. The thing we call reason is more like an accompaniment. Perhaps, but is not the truth meaningless as well? You also said in your first post: That's what I said: "When there's nothing left, all that remains is the truth." => truth = nothing I suppose this still remains consistent with another excerpt from your first post: I guess so.

[Icelus]

Why stop there? If everything is a contruct of the human mind, does that not include the human mind? Even if that were so, it does not deny the mind. It still stands firm with Descartes observation, no matter how it came about. And if they simply are meaningless out of the egocentric context? Meaning is a human appraisal. There is no meaning outside the direct human context... none we would understand at least. Yep, that is basically what I am getting at. Except that there is probably no meaning at all, even if we could understand everything. Reason is the extended version of an ape using a stone to crush a coconut shell. Besides, we humans are not really acting reasonable. We mostly act first, then we try to reason. The thing we call reason is more like an accompaniment. The observers apply reason, not the actors. As we have established, reason is basically an observation, so of course the action comes first. That's what I said: "When there's nothing left, all that remains is the truth." => truth = nothing Yes, I suppose I misunderstood your post. Still, the truth being nothing, what point is there to reduce our sensibilities? Why bother understanding that it is all nothing? You have yet to give me a purpose. Oh wait, the purpose is meaningless, so there is no point to it too. This means it is futile to try to understand that there is no meaning, so we might as well live in ignorance. Without meaning, I think we have done pretty well since we made all this wonderful stuff up, don't you?

[psy]

Still, the truth being nothing, what point is there to reduce our sensibilities? Why bother understanding that it is all nothing? You have yet to give me a purpose. Oh wait, the purpose is meaningless, so there is no point to it too. This means it is futile to try to understand that there is no meaning, so we might as well live in ignorance. Living in ignorance, we would 1. miss a good laugh, 2. go on searching for nothing, 3. become bitter about the unfairness of life. Instead we could 1. have a good laugh, 2. go on living, 3. accept life. Without meaning, I think we have done pretty well since we made all this wonderful stuff up, don't you? No, really, I don't like what we made up. I would prefer living without TVs, cars, cell phones, fast food, genetic engineering, pharma companies, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, pollution, concrete, internet porn, money,... that list could get very long so I stop here. Yes, we made a lot of progress... into the wrong direction. Our lifes are based on production, consumption and greed, a perfect rat race system created around us. I prefer a simple and peaceful life concentrating on (individually) more important things than pleasure, possession/safety and power.

[Icelus]

Living in ignorance, we would 1. miss a good laugh, 2. go on searching for nothing, 3. become bitter about the unfairness of life. Instead we could 1. have a good laugh, 2. go on living, 3. accept life. 1. I don't really see how it is humorous to conclude that everything is worthless. 2. Go on searching for nothing and firmly believing we found something. If nothing else, this provides the pleasant feeling of hope. 3. As you have even said, our view of life and its meaningless wonders is a mere appraisal. We would not become bitter just because we didn't accept your view of life. Furthermore, most people understand that it is unfair but they keep moving and can even have wonderful lives. Truthfully, if I actually accepted all of these philosophical speculations you propose, I think I would be worse off than I am already. The concept would instantly invalidate my life and I probably wouldn't go on knowing it. I guess you could say it doesn't matter, but to me, and I am sure others, it does. No, really, I don't like what we made up. I would prefer living without TVs, cars, cell phones, fast food, genetic engineering, pharma companies, nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, pollution, concrete, internet porn, money,... that list could get very long so I stop here. You named a lot of bad things in there. What about medicine, electricity, communication, information technology, higher standard of living, and even running clean water? Good things come with the bad as well. Even if we removed all the advances we have produced, a lot of the problems would not stop. War would still happen. Death rates would be even higher. Diseases would plague us even more. There is no escape. Yes, we made a lot of progress... into the wrong direction. Our lifes are based on production, consumption and greed, a perfect rat race system created around us. I prefer a simple and peaceful life concentrating on (individually) more important things than pleasure, possession/safety and power. According to what I am drawing from your view, life is nothing more than how you perceive it. If you want to live it a certain way, go ahead. It shouldn't require everyone to lower down to your level. I guess, in the end, we will just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate science and technology, the very reality we have constructed. You do not. Not much that can be done about it.

[Bonsay]

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

[psy]

Truthfully, if I actually accepted all of these philosophical speculations you propose, I think I would be worse off than I am already. That's because you try to reason. You cannot come to that view on life using reason and that's why I said above, that it's useless if I talk about it, you cannot gain understanding from my words. That is not because you are limited in your thinking, but because you actually are thinking. You need to experience it to understand, that's the only way. Either you increase the chance of such experiences occuring to you - you cannot force it to happen, you can only give it space - or you don't. But once you understand, there is no way back. There is no option for me to think like you do anymore, once you passed the gate, there is no way back. I don't say you have to, I don't even want you to, but I would help you if I could. What about medicine, electricity, communication, information technology, higher standard of living, and even running clean water? It doesn't matter anyway. It shouldn't require everyone to lower down to your level. Down is relative. I prefer the term "basic" or "simple". You will not find happiness and fulfillment in material things, you will only find yourself hunting for more. I guess, in the end, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't need to disagree. You cannot accept the paradoxon, I smile.

[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.

[Icelus]

That's because you try to reason. You cannot come to that view on life using reason and that's why I said above, that it's useless if I talk about it, you cannot gain understanding from my words. I do understand that I would have to let go of thought and reason, but that is just the problem: I don't want to. I don't mind living in ignorance (assuming by this model that it is ignorance). Ignorance is bliss after all. Maybe, bliss is relative, but that doesn't change the fact that I am in it, so long as I am convinced I am. It doesn't matter anyway. To me it does. Down is relative. I prefer the term "basic" or "simple". You will not find happiness and fulfillment in material things, you will only find yourself hunting for more. Call it whatever you like. I do agree though, happiness cannot be found through material things. However, comfort (whether it is a human manifestation or not) can. Comfort can then provide us happiness.

[psy]

I think it was an italo-western with Bud Spencer and Terence Hill where Terence said to Bud, that peace can only be found in the heart.

[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.