# Lucid Dreaming > General Lucid Discussion >  >  If waking life is a dream, how could we really wake up?

## three and four

Ok, Im sure that this question must have been raised on some other thread before, so if anyone can point me to it, please do, and this thread need not be.

My question is this: if what we consider to be real / waking life is in fact some sort of dream (or Matrix-like experience), how do we: 1. know, 2. wake up (if indeed waking up is the best thing to do. Suicide does not seem to be an option) 3. gain more lucidity. 

What would the waking life equivalent of dream signs be? Ive had quite a number of very unlikely coincidences happen to me over the years which, depending on my mood, make me very suspicious about the nature of reality. 

Any thoughts?

----------


## pj

Wow - lots of thoughts.

I no longer believe in coincidence, though I do believe in solidness of this particular reality that we happen to be sharing.  I also believe that most people spend their lives in a state of near complete... whatever the opposite of lucidity is.

The thing about reality that escaped me for decades is that it is utterly transient.  The ONLY reality that we are capable of experiencing is this moment.  That one that just blew past is gone, and the next one coming down the road may or may not arrive.  NOW is all that is real.  All the rest is illusion.  Memories, fantasies, whatever... it is all illusion.  None of the rest is real.

Waking up, for me, involves staying in the moment and investing everything I have in it.  The things fighting against me include memories, anticipation, analysis and even to a great degree reason.  My "inner voice" is constantly seeking to divert me from reality and back into illusion.  When I'm not focused on reality, I'm not lucid to that reality.

My "reality checks" for waking life consist mostly of monitoring what I'm thinking about.  I seek to silence that inner voice.  I do not permit it to delve into "why" unless there is a very practical and immediate reason for doing so, and then only long enough to accomplish the goal at hand.

Much of this goes back to an awakening I had several years ago when I realized that my discontent and borderline misery weren't rooted in anything real.  Yes, things happen and some of them are bad - but how often are those bad things really happening?  Comparing the time spent enduring a bad event to the time spent revisiting it and I had my answer.  Add the time I spend anticipating bad things and the answer grows even weightier.  So I made a simple decision - to be happy.  Period.

I think that is my most reliable reality check.  If I'm not happy, then I've lost lucidity.

And as far as those amazing things that happen, I find them coming more and more often when I simply let them.  Call it what you will - I'm not anywhere near a "name it and claim it" kind of guy, but I do know that when I bring my intent on something, it happens.  This wasn't true before making that decision to wake up.

----------


## three and four

Thanks for your thoughts, PJ  spoken like a true Buddha!  ::meditate::  I agree with pretty much everything you say.

About coincidences, Im very close to no longer believing in them at all anymore  just like you. But then comes the question: if there are no coincidences... what is going on? I mean, really: just what the hell is going on, please!? (Are we even _able_ to grasp what is going on?). Do you have any theories about this?

I also agree that most people seem to live out their lives on automatic, like zombies (not your words). Almost in the same way that most of our non-lucid dreams happen: we are just swept along on automatic...

Also, when you talk about silencing the inner voice, I dont suppose you mean silencing the process of rational thought, right? I presume that you mean silencing what some have referred to as the chattering monkey inner voice that does indeed invariably take us out of the moment and uses up mental energy on wasteful thoughts... Right?

Although I sometimes wonder what it would be like to silence all inner voices completely (British psychologist Susan Blackmore did a lot of experimenting with this herself). Maybe I should try attempt this total inner silence at some stage...

But you are right: only the moment exists, all the rest is fantasy.

----------


## Abra

Everything has a reason simply because everything has a cause. Coincidences happen because certain conditions were met on both the dealer's and receiver's ends. There is no supreme purpose for the small things. I doubt the universe would differ much twenty years down the road if I farted now, or a second from now. The illusion of fate occurs because as time moves forward, the past becomes permanent (which is a great reason to let go of the superfluous feeling of regret).

But yeah, back to lucidity. I agree completely on the automaton zombie subject. Here's my example:

Two teens meet at Wal-Mart.
"Hey."
"Hey."
"Whusup."
"Nothin."
"Oh."
"Whatcha lis'nin to."
"________."
"Cool."

And they say it just like that. Every single one of them. Without emotion or thought, it's as if they aren't even aware that they are greeting each other! I hated certain elements of school. Specifically the bell. People hear it and stand up and leave on impulse, not because they must get to their next class.

The truth is, we are conditioned beings. Even _earthworms_ can be conditioned. But how many species have the ability to become aware of the process, and when they partake in it? How many individuals of said species, do you think, take the initiative to actually _think_ about it?

----------


## imj

> Ok, I’m sure that this question must have been raised on some other thread before, so if anyone can point me to it, please do, and this thread need not be.
> 
> My question is this: if what we consider to be “real” / waking life is in fact some sort of dream (or Matrix-like experience), how do we: 1. know, 2. wake up (if indeed waking up is the best thing to do. Suicide does not seem to be an option) 3. gain more lucidity. 
> 
> What would the waking life equivalent of “dream signs” be? I’ve had quite a number of very unlikely coincidences happen to me over the years which, depending on my mood, make me very suspicious about the nature of reality. 
> 
> Any thoughts?



My advice to U is....do not even think that waking life may be a dream. If U do, it will screw U up.....trust me it will eventually, without Ur knowing.
U become too convinced that what U see and experience as waking reality is no longer valid and U will have trouble separating the two at a subconcious level. Stop it.....waking reality is REAL....try jumping off Ur window now and see what happens... :tongue2: . That is the dreamsign of reality...U will die.

IMJ

----------


## pj

> About coincidences, Im very close to no longer believing in them at all anymore  just like you. But then comes the question: if there are no coincidences... what is going on? I mean, really: just what the hell is going on, please!? (Are we even _able_ to grasp what is going on?). Do you have any theories about this?





I have some vague impressions - impressions that are increasingly derived from my lucid dreaming experiences.  No... I don't think we are able to grasp what is going on, at least not in terms of understanding and reason.  We are, perhaps, able to form analogies and descriptions, but those too are functions of reason. I have come to believe that reason is not an effective tool in discerning these deeper truths or the most simple and complete moment of reality.  Reason does have its place in maintaining our physical existence, but recognizing that it is a limited tool with a specific purpose is essential.  Reason is a reflective device that produces prediction, expectation and anticipation.  All of those are diversions from the moment.
 




> I also agree that most people seem to live out their lives on automatic, like zombies (not your words). Almost in the same way that most of our non-lucid dreams happen: we are just swept along on automatic...



Exactly - and I think we are living in a non-lucid dreamlike state when we are immersed in reason, and even more so when we are at the mercy of the "monkey voice."  

These views are very much influenced by my lucid experiences.  How is it we "make things happen" (if that's even what it is) in our lucid dreams?  What is the mechanism that we employ to pass through walls, fly and all else that happens in our dreams?  We simply become aware that we can, and we do.  We don't need to reason out the methodology or understand the underlying mechanisms that result in our will being made "real".





> Also, when you talk about silencing the inner voice, I dont suppose you mean silencing the process of rational thought, right? I presume that you mean silencing what some have referred to as the chattering monkey inner voice that does indeed invariably take us out of the moment and uses up mental energy on wasteful thoughts... Right?





Both, actually.  Reason is necessary for physical survival.  I obviously have commitments and responsibilities... to those physical ends, reason serves me well and is completely necessary.  The "chattering monkey" seems to serve no purpose whatsoever and only disturbs my inner peace and happiness, so I do strive to keep that one gone.  But I also try to limit the application of reason to those areas where it is an effective tool, and recognize when it either interferes with or even precludes experience.  That's a pretty new idea to me and a learning curve I've only recently embarked on.
 




> Although I sometimes wonder what it would be like to silence all inner voices completely (British psychologist Susan Blackmore did a lot of experimenting with this herself). Maybe I should try attempt this total inner silence at some stage...





It is challenging.  I'm not even sure I've ever really fully experienced it, because there seem to be layers of "voices".  The lowest level and most damaging is that "monkey voice" you refer to - the voice that is constantly picking fights, cutting me down, reminding me of failures, anticipating doom, etc.  It is utterly negative.  Riding above that is a much more positive and quieter "voice" - the one I work at staying in much of the time.  But there are other times that voice, too, needs to just shut up, and it is only with the complete silencing of all those voices that I can truly be in the moment and fully immersed in reality.  But even above that quieter, positive voice, there is a sort of observational voice that continues trying to translate experience into lingual terms - an interpreter, I guess.  That is the one I don't know that I've ever managed to really silence completely.

----------


## Moonbeam

> My question is this: if what we consider to be real / waking life is in fact some sort of dream (or Matrix-like experience), how do we: 1. know, 2. wake up (if indeed waking up is the best thing to do. Suicide does not seem to be an option) 3. gain more lucidity.





If death will tell you the answer, then all you have to do is wait, and then you will have a very long time to figure it out.  But I guess you are impatient and want to know now.  :smiley:  





> What would the waking life equivalent of dream signs be? Ive had quite a number of very unlikely coincidences happen to me over the years which, depending on my mood, make me very suspicious about the nature of reality.





Since I know those kind of "dream signs" can be chemically induced, I'm suspicious of  the nature of _them_, rather than the other way around.  The chemically induced experiences don't hold up when closely examined; if they did, we could all take acid and know the answer.  I'm not sure that the same things that happen to the brain under those conditions can't happen on a very low-level at other times (random fluctuations of the neurotransmitters, single brain cell malfunctioning, etc), giving odd significance and unlikely connections to occurrences which "in reality" are not actually significant or connected.   Just something to consider, not saying anybody is crazy or anything.  (I guess I had the opposite results of most people; instead of expanding my consciousness, I realize how easily it can be manipulated with chemistry.)  

Do we see patterns where none exist?  It seems to be a human tendency.





> I also agree that most people seem to live out their lives on automatic, like zombies (not your words). Almost in the same way that most of our non-lucid dreams happen: we are just swept along on automatic...





Unfortunately, even my lucids are like that.  I was just thinking about that today (by coincidence!  :wink2: ); it was something like this:  No wonder I am so oblivious in lucid dreams (having trouble remembering my priorities, easily distracted, etc) when I am the same way in real life!  So (for the millionth time) I was trying to think of some ways to keep myself more aware.  I've gotten used to the new RC-reminders I made recently and ignore them now; miss dream-signs constantly, etc.  It's a constant struggle.  ::shakehead::  So I don't think I can expect to move onto any higher leve of awareness any time soon.  





> Although I sometimes wonder what it would be like to silence all inner voices completely (British psychologist Susan Blackmore did a lot of experimenting with this herself). Maybe I should try attempt this total inner silence at some stage...





Lol, yea I"ve tried that too--how she says not to make any conscious decision about what you are going to do, then observe what you do.  You will still turn the wheel of your car if you are driving, etc.  It's a very strange feeling.   Not that I can do it for very long.  I think it helps you to understand how free will may be an illusion too, which was her purpose, right?





> But you are right: only the moment exists, all the rest is fantasy.



No one can argue with that.  Except maybe Einstein.  ::lol::  As it applies to us, however, that is surely true.





> The illusion of fate occurs because as time moves forward, the past becomes permanent (which is a great reason to let go of the superfluous feeling of regret).



Another good reason not to feel regret is that you just don't know what would have happened if you had made another decision about anything.  So what if you didn't do that really stupid thing that you wish you hadn't done?  Maybe you would be dead or something by another chain of events set off by that different decision.  That's why I try not to regret things.





> The truth is, we are conditioned beings. Even _earthworms_ can be conditioned. But how many species have the ability to become aware of the process, and when they partake in it? How many individuals of said species, do you think, take the initiative to actually _think_ about it?



Not many, I think.

----------


## MrBeelzy

We as humans share some reality based on the fact that we perceive things in the same way more or less (as far as our senses and notions of causality and so forth). This lies on the fact that I believe in autonomy, and agency. We might not be able to perceive much beyond the observable, or truly explain all the unobservables, but that only determines our reality.

Something lies beyond, in higher dimensions, higher levels of consciousness, but can humans reach these higher levels? I'd argue no. We do the best we can with science to explain these things, but I don't believe we have the capacity to transcend this world, at least not in life. Take time for example. We understand it as a linear progression because that is how we experience it. We have theories that it operates other ways, and can explain them mathematically, but I don't see us seeing in four dimensions like the Trafalmadorians, we just don't have the capacity.

If life is really like the Matrix, so be it, that's as real as I need. I'll take it as it comes, try to explain and understand what I can, and enjoy the ride.

Oh, and as far as people going through life on autopilot, yeah, damn our brains and hardwiring themselves. It is however useful for getting by, but it doesn't dominate my life. I agree with pj here, on his philosophy for daily life, even if not on his notion of reality. I'm more or less a determinist as well, so I don't believe in coincidence either.

----------


## Who I Am

We are dreaming our own personal dream while we are awake, but we are also part of a corporate dream, the dream of all people,... the "big dream".

----------


## Who I Am

... just realize that you are dreaming.  :smiley: 

"The seminal Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu dreamed he was a butterfly. Upon awakening, he wondered whether he was a man who had dreamed he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was a man. Chuang Tzu's musings underscore a fundamental truth: life is like a dream." http://www.plotinus.com/zhine_tibeta...yoga_part2.htm

----------


## Captain Sleepalot

Great thread, and great insights PJ (and everyone else).

We all see waking life through our own filters (physical, mental, emotional) so it becomes a question not only of waking up to that fact, but learning to control those filters during waking life as we do in lucid dreams.

But I think as long as you are aware that your thoughts, feelings, opinions, etc are all part of your own personal filter, or "dream", you can be considered to be awake on some level.

----------


## Barns

The problem with philosophy is that it can go unbearably deep.

I think we should take life -and dreams- as they come at us and accept the circumstances we may not understand.

----------


## Dreamhope11

> My advice to U is....do not even think that waking life may be a dream. If U do, it will screw U up.....trust me it will eventually, without Ur knowing.
> U become too convinced that what U see and experience as waking reality is no longer valid and U will have trouble separating the two at a subconcious level. Stop it.....waking reality is REAL....try jumping off Ur window now and see what happens.... That is the dreamsign of reality...U will die.
> 
> IMJ



Yes i know what you mean, thinking life is not real may corrupt you and make you turn into a criminal, killing people and just thinking it doesn't matter.

----------


## nlmgr

> Yes i know what you mean, thinking life is not real may corrupt you and make you turn into a criminal, killing people and just thinking it doesn't matter.



Remember, sitting bull thought his dreams were real and life was fake.

----------


## Who I Am

Learning that the fabric and substance of "reality", is basically the same as dreams, will help you master reality. 

Reality is malleable.  :boogie:

----------


## Sumthingerava

Reality is malleable
------------------
On that note so are humans, the ones who you say are zombies so to speak, they live there lives on autopilot so heavily they are easy to influence,and kind of corrupt I guess.
I find morals are one of the main things that tie you to reality and stop you from being a zombie, because without morals or beliefs we are nothing.
Hmmmm the philosophical musings of a fifteen year old boy.......

----------


## Astrius

Here are some excellent insights into the nature of reality...

Esoteric Agenda, part 12
Esoteric Agenda, part 13

----------


## DreamPioneer

The best thing you could do is take the blue pill

----------


## LucidFlanders

> Ok, Im sure that this question must have been raised on some other thread before, so if anyone can point me to it, please do, and this thread need not be.
> 
> My question is this: if what we consider to be real / waking life is in fact some sort of dream (or Matrix-like experience), how do we: 1. know, 2. wake up (if indeed waking up is the best thing to do. Suicide does not seem to be an option) 3. gain more lucidity. 
> 
> What would the waking life equivalent of dream signs be? Ive had quite a number of very unlikely coincidences happen to me over the years which, depending on my mood, make me very suspicious about the nature of reality. 
> 
> Any thoughts?




Die. If we are still there we are awake, if we are not still there then we never existed in the first place.

----------


## Moonbeam

Three and Four, and pj:  you guys should share some of these experiences that you are talking about, if they are not too personal.

----------


## three and four

Oh, Ive been away a few days, so Ill try and catch up...

Who I Am and Captain Sleepalot, I agree with you: I do suspect that more awareness of how we function and why we function that way (leading us to free ourselves from pre-conditioning) is probably the key being more awake. But I find it so difficult!! 

I wonder: is there a level of total freedom that could be reached once all, or as much as possible, of our pre-conditioning is stripped away? What would that feel / look like? (Or is this thinking too far? Is it possible? Has anybody on this site reached that stage and would they tell us what its like?!).

MrBeelzy, you write: Something lies beyond, in higher dimensions, higher levels of consciousness, but can humans reach these higher levels? I'd argue no. 

But then... if we cant reach them, how can we even suspect they are there??

Dreamhope11, you say: Yes i know what you mean, thinking life is not real may corrupt you and make you turn into a criminal, killing people and just thinking it doesn't matter. Well, even if you think that prison isnt real, once youre in it for 30 years youll probably suffer just the same!

Somethingereva, you say I find morals are one of the main things that tie you to reality and stop you from being a zombie, because without morals or beliefs we are nothing.. Id say it depends where the morals come from: coz if theyre 19th century morals about sex, Id say were better off without them! So... what is the source of your morals? (Im not saying we should not have them!).

PJ, with all respect,  :smiley: , I cant agree that using reason takes us out of the moment. Our reason is pretty much the best tool we have at this stage, so please dont junk it! Getting our minds wrapped up in jealousy, fear, anger  yes, these things do all drag us away from what is real. But think of something really simple: close your eyes and visualize a square, know that its four sides are equal, that each angle is 90 degrees, see that perfect shape. There: you just used reason to do some basic geometry: dont tell me that this took you out of the moment! (Ive not read Platos Theory of Forms lately, but I think he says something along these lines: that ideas such as geometric forms are in fact more real than everyday reality...).

Moonbeam, the experiences Im talking about are things that a lot of people have had a taste of at some stage or another: for some reason you keep thinking of someone youve not seen (or thought about) for ten years and then, the next day, you get a letter from them. Recently, my girlfriend and I had a strikingly similar dream on the very same night. These are just two examples of the type of thing that has happened to me often enough to get me suspecting that there is something more going on than is explained by currently accepted mainstream theories. I seem to find that these coincidences happen more frequently when Im in the moment, focused, relaxed, in good health, and not wrapped up in negative stuff...

The problem is, there are a lot of crackpots out there who will come out with hundreds of far-fetched explanations which makes it all very confusing (I cant take seriously the idea that this is all some sort of alien experiment being run on a supercomputer...). So right now Im trying to look at just one of the possible explanations: that reality is some sort of dream... But I really would like to try and build an understanding of whats going on based on elements that make sense, ie that dont require a sudden illogical suspension of reason. You know? 

If it is all a dream, I've no idea who the dreamer might be!

----------


## Moonbeam

> The problem is, there are a lot of crackpots out there who will come out with hundreds of far-fetched explanations which makes it all very confusing (I cant take seriously the idea that this is all some sort of alien experiment being run on a supercomputer...). So right now Im trying to look at just one of the possible explanations: that reality is some sort of dream... But I really would like to try and build an understanding of whats going on based on elements that make sense, ie that dont require a sudden illogical suspension of reason. You know?





Yea.  I just can't get past the fact that I know the tendencies of my own mind towards superstition, magical thinking, etc. and I don't even believe in anything like that.  I can imagine the "signs" that people who think it's possible think they are getting.  Not saying that you are particularly susceptible to it; I think we all are--that's the problem.  Isolating the facts to get that understanding is the hard part when you are dealing with subjective things like this.

If there were no coincidences, wouldn't that be an even bigger coincidence?  Imagine all of the "close-call" coincidences that just miss, or the ones that we don't even notice.  Patterns emerge from random numbers if they are infinite.

I'm still waiting for that proof that there is something more than on the surface too.  There probably is but maybe our brains can't comprehend it (mine, at least  ::?: .)  Maybe it is in quantum mechanics but I don't undertand it enough to know.

Thanks for sharing.  Maybe we can dream the answer.  But it might be one of those things that goes away when you try to think about it.

----------


## SynapseSnap

> Do we see patterns where none exist?  It seems to be a human tendency.



I'd say it's more the other way around. I'd say everything (brave, I know) is a patterned mesh of causal links and we, as humans, have a dangerous tendency to overlook those patterns. Blame our monkey brain, or our limited perspective, but that seems to be our major problem.

I know this is an impossible exercise, but using your monkey brain, imagine living five hundred years ago when the earth was flat, was the center of the universe, gravity wasn't modeled, and so on and so forth. Consider all the patterns and relationships that they didn't grasp, and try to conceive of all the unknown patterns and relationships that must still remain unknown today. There's literally an _infinite_ number.

All said, I'd say if at any given time, in any given situation, if you intuit that a pattern is present, you're more right than assuming that there is none at all.

----------


## three and four

That's a really interesting way of looking at things, SynapseSnap, but please, follow your reasoning all the way through: what conclusion does it lead you to? What is going on??! I'd like to hear what you think.

----------


## MrBeelzy

> All said, I'd say if at any given time, in any given situation, if you intuit that a pattern is present, you're more right than assuming that there is none at all.



I more or less agree with what your saying, being a determinist, and having a loose understanding of theoretical physics. However I think the last part of your post is wrong.

People may not have been able to accurately describe the nature of our solar system, or the Earth five hundred years ago, but this is only because of the prevalence of religious cosmological ideas, and a lack of understanding of forces like gravity. People didn't really intuit that there was a relationship between the sun and the Earth, it was _observable_.

Take alternative and folk medicines, or faith healing for example. I'm sure I'll get somebody here saying I'm wrong, but most alternative medicines have proposed effects that just do not exist. Reflexology, acupuncture, and other quackery really only employ the placebo effect, yet so many people believe that they will cure all their ailments. Watch some infomercials, you'll see so many products that make similar claims, and have no basis.

If more often than not when people intuit patterns they are right, then why do we see the prevalence of post hoc, correlation implies causation and other such logical fallacies? There are psychological phenomena that do the same thing. Look at pareidolia, and other forms of apophenia. The number of pseudoscientific beliefs, and conspiracy theories out there suggest quite the oppsite.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

I don't understand why people would want to "live for the moment". Don't they care about the future?
Short sighted SOBS!  :tongue2: 
Jk, but still...can anyone please explain what this means because I'm a little confused.

----------


## MrBeelzy

Living for the moment is appreciating and enjoying the time you have. Stopping and smelling the roses and all that good stuff. Like James Dean said, "Dream as if you'll live forever, live as if you'll die today."

----------


## SynapseSnap

> That's a really interesting way of looking at things, SynapseSnap, but please, follow your reasoning all the way through: what conclusion does it lead you to? What is going on??! I'd like to hear what you think.



It leads me to the conclusion that, given the history of the physical universe, where chaos appears to settle into ordered systems, everything must therefore be connected at the most fundamental level through very complex relationships that we just don't have the capacity as individuals who live for 80 years, to detect. It's easy from where we sit to logically accept the idea that there are random events because we see things happen everyday that don't seem to be linked, but that doesn't mean the link doesn't exist. All I'm really saying is that someone who suspects that two elements, forces or events may have some kind of relationship is probably infinitely more right than someone who precludes the idea of a relationship by assuming that one can't exist.

As for what's going on? Well, I don't really _know_, I'm not ready to surrender to any particular answer yet. Maybe if I wanted to be facetious I could say that I suspect I would be infinitely more right if I said I think I am you, you are me, and we're all part of the same 'thing', than if I said we were disconnected and utterly separate. If that's vague enough. I think it's safe to say, as Dawkins would, that what's going on is weirder than we can suppose.

--

MrBeelzy, a few things - first, I want to nip any semantical disagreements in the bud right from the outset; rather than intuiting, it might be more reasonable for me to say 'suspect'. Intuit would imply I'm talking about something separate from observation, while using the word 'suspect' makes it easier to see my point without going into the relationship I see between observation and intuition... which I will do anyway, but I'm just being clear about what I meant.

Take the example of Newton watching an apple fall; he sees the apple fall - actually observes only the apple - but he _intuits_ that a force is acting on that apple. Science isn't really built on observation, but really built on time-tested intuition about what those observations mean. For example, the theory of relativity isn't as true as the observations that it serves to help us understand. Really, science understands the theory is just a placeholder. Theory and intuition are synonymous in the sense that they are both beliefs requiring trust in certain preconditions to be true. If I'm making any sense, let me know. So, I did mean intuit, but it would have been easier for me to just say suspect... which is another interesting thing to think about; language. Oh man, don't get me started on language.

And, this goes to your last paragraph asking:

_"If more often than not when people intuit patterns they are right, then why do we see the prevalence of post hoc, correlation implies causation and other such logical fallacies?"_

To really make my point I'd have to come up with some kind of Drake's Equation to show the virtually unlimited number causal relationships that may exist (and of course then compare it to the few that we think might be there, and perhaps aren't, and the even fewer that we seem to have discerned, but may not understand completely), and I'm way to lazy to do that - but we're sort of arguing two different things anyway. I think.

I'm not saying that the relationship that people suspect exists are necessarily right, but that suspecting a relationship _may_ exist is infinitely more accurate than presuming one doesn't. Not sure if this analogy holds any water but if you imagine you're walking around in a dark room, if you leave room for possibilities in your world view, this is like walking with your arms in front of you, and if you preclude possibilities by assuming they can't exist, then this is like thinking you have no need to walk with your arms in front of you, come what may. Sort of how I see it anyway.

Let me know what you think.

----------


## three and four

> I don't understand why people would want to "live for the moment". Don't they care about the future?
> Short sighted SOBS! 
> Jk, but still...can anyone please explain what this means because I'm a little confused.



Hello Timothy Paradox,

You might want to check out chapter 1 of Stephen LaBerge's Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming (if you don't have it - get it!).

Just a few pages into the book there is an exercise called "Your present state of consciousness". It's as simple as it is effective, and concerns focusing on your surroundings, one sense at a time. As you do this, you let go of the usual buzz that goes on in your mind and that distracts from... the present moment.

Arguably, if we want to facilitate become lucid in our dreams we have to cultivate our waking awareness of the present moment. More awareness = more lucidity.

Doing this in dreams works and leads to lucid dreaming. I'm wondering how far we can push it in waking life, if WL is some sort of dream...

----------


## Who I Am

The present moment is all there is...

----------


## three and four

SynapseSnap,

Its funny you should mention the time when people thought the world was flat, as I often think about that. I recently read a biography of Amerigo Vespucci, which goes into some detail about how people understood the world back in those days. As explorers started to cross the Atlantic and come back to tell the tale, the idea of a flat world started to fall apart.

The idea that we live on a sphere must have been very difficult to accept for a lot of people. Imagine having spent all your life thinking that the world was flat (it sure looks that way from our viewpoint) and then suddenly have a bunch of sailors tell you its not. 

What I also read in this book is that even though the explorers believed, then experienced, the world as spherical, everybody still thought that if you traveled too far south, youd fall off! Even Columbus believed this. The fist navigators to reach the shores of Brazil could not understand why they had not fallen off the planet.

Im guessing that a lot of people chose to cling to their flat-world belief system despite growing, then overwhelming evidence that it was wrong. Such a fundamental paradigm shift cant be easy to tackle  intellectually, emotionally, and even psychologically. After all, its so much more comfortable to stay within the bounds of what we have been taught and what the majority believes.

My point is this: when it comes to understanding the nature of consciousness, I strongly suspect that we will have to go through a similarly radical paradigm shift in order to understand what is really going on. We are the universe becoming aware of itself, as Carl Sagan said, makes sense to me (and this possibly overlaps with your notion that "I am you and you are me", to misquote you...).

Are we _able_ to understand what is really going on? (by the way, it is Sir Arthur Eddington you are quoting, not Richard Dawkins (although no doubt Dawkins agrees)). I suspect that our present abilities are probably too limited to give us the whole big picture, but Im certain that we are able, today, to develop a better understanding than the one which is generally held (even though it might take a while for the rest of humanity to agree. After all, the first person to emit the theory that the world was spherical, Aristarchus of Samos, was born in... 310 BC).

----------


## Who I Am

three and four

Since consciousness is all we will ever have and all we will ever know, expanding it makes good sense.  :smiley:

----------


## three and four

> The present moment is all there is...



... and all there ever was, and all there ever will be...

 ::D: 

I'm glad we agree!

----------


## pj

> PJ, with all respect, , I can’t agree that using reason takes us out of the moment. Our reason is pretty much the best tool we have at this stage, so please don’t junk it! Getting our minds wrapped up in jealousy, fear, anger – yes, these things do all drag us away from what is “real”. But think of something really simple: close your eyes and visualize a square, know that its four sides are equal, that each angle is 90 degrees, “see” that perfect shape. There: you just used “reason” to do some basic geometry: don’t tell me that this took you out of the moment! (I’ve not read Plato’s Theory of Forms lately, but I think he says something along these lines: that “ideas” such as geometric forms are in fact more “real” than everyday reality...).



Let me try this again.

I believe reason is the best tool we have available for dealing with physical reality.  I also believe that, by its very nature, it prevents us from being in the moment.  It is a function - a function that draws on experience (past) and makes predictions (future).  Reason and knowledge are not the same thing, though they do work together and both do divert us from the moment.  Dealing with, manipulating and exploiting physical reality is not the same thing as experiencing it.  I argue that experience is often (usually) hindered by both reason and knowledge.

Let me give a more complex example, but one that has directly led to these observations in myself.  Let's say I'm enjoying a concert of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra.  What can I experience while I'm sitting there listening?

I can be totally diverted by the "monkey voice" and miss most of what is going on.  This could go in a zillion directions - being distracted by the lady in front of me with the blue hair and too much perfume and cursing her silently, thinking about how my stomach is a bit upset by having made the mistake of going to Mexican Village and eating an entire Arizonian combo before the show, etc.

I can be totally diverted by reason and knowledge, too.  As a musician, I can sit there and disassemble what I'm listening to, recognizing key center changes, harmonic and rhythmic conventions and voice leading.  I can be awed by the flawless intonation and locked vibrato of the string sections.  I can be awed as well by the director's choices in the "mix" and flow of the performance.  I can recall other times I've heard the piece performed and anticipate what is coming.  I can ponder why the DSO sounds so much better in Orchestra Hall than they ever did even under Antol Dorati at Ford Auditorium.

Or, if I can shut down reason as well, I can be utterly immersed in the beauty and majesty of that transient experience.  I can allow the music to play my emotions rather than my cerebral processes.  Without reflection, anticipation or translation, I'm then able to invest all I am in experiencing the moment as fully as humanly possible.

Rather than visualizing that square of yours, draw one and then try experiencing it without the analysis.  That's what I'm talking about.

Can you remember the joy and magic of experiencing new things as a child?  What has changed since then?

----------


## Who I Am

> ... and all there ever was, and all there ever will be...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad we agree!



One of my favorite meditation exercises is to meditate on the present moment. 

Consciousness is like the edge of a sword.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

I do that all the time. What I was trying to say is that I dislike people who only enjoy themselves and totally ignore the past or future.





> Hello Timothy Paradox,
> 
> You might want to check out chapter 1 of Stephen LaBerge's Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming (if you don't have it - get it!).
> 
> Just a few pages into the book there is an exercise called "Your present state of consciousness". It's as simple as it is effective, and concerns focusing on your surroundings, one sense at a time. As you do this, you let go of the usual buzz that goes on in your mind and that distracts from... the present moment.
> 
> Arguably, if we want to facilitate become lucid in our dreams we have to cultivate our waking awareness of the present moment. More awareness = more lucidity.
> 
> Doing this in dreams works and leads to lucid dreaming. I'm wondering how far we can push it in waking life, if WL is some sort of dream...

----------


## Bonsay

Why would you dislike people who enjoy themselves... You are aware that you're going to die, aren't you? Isn't happiness the point of life, or at least something we want? I wish I could enjoy every moment of life. You can't change the past or the future, so why not just live in the moment and be happy about it.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

You can change the future...
And I DO wanna be happy, but not at the cost of other people. If everybody thought like you, our planet would have been destroyed decades ago.
So, you don't care about anything, do you? Selfishness...tss.
Oh and by the way... Helping to secure a bright future for everybody makes me happy.
People who say you should only care about the 'now' are either weak or lazy.




> Why would you dislike people who enjoy themselves... You are aware that you're going to die, aren't you? Isn't happiness the point of life, or at least something we want? I wish I could enjoy every moment of life. You can't change the past or the future, so why not just live in the moment and be happy about it.

----------


## Bonsay

How can you change the future?
Would there be a problem if the world was destroyed, everybody would be happy about it.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

By doing something...Ever heard of causality?  ::lol:: 
And also - speak for yourself. Not everybody is THAT short-sighted, self-centered and careless. 




> How can you change the future?
> Would there be a problem if the world was destroyed, everybody would be happy about it.

----------


## Bonsay

Do you think you're "tricking" the future by doing something?

I don't know why you think that happiness would destroy the world, or that wishing happiness is short-sighted, self-centered or careless. 

Also why does your sig say the opposite of what you said above "I dislike people who only enjoy themselves and totally ignore the past or future.".

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Cause -> consequense.
You polluting the world by thinking only about yourself -> world goes to hell
You helping the world (and being happy) -> we survive.
Causality for beginners.
What is happiness for you? Doing whatever you want?
Do you consider people who protect the enviroment and human rights stupid and unhappy? 
About the sig: I never said that, it's a quote from Mr. Linderman, a fictional villain. I personally believe that it is possible to be happy BY trying to do good things for the world.




> Do you think you're "tricking" the future by doing something?
> 
> I don't know why you think that happiness would destroy the world, or that wishing happiness is short-sighted, self-centered or careless. 
> 
> Also why does your sig say the opposite of what you said above "I dislike people who only enjoy themselves and totally ignore the past or future.".

----------


## Bonsay

Well I was only regarding your first post. That was careless of me. I misunderstood what you said and totaly messed up everything by "thinking out loud". So I'm not what the above posts might seem to make me.

Personaly a lot of things would make me happy. Making other people happy along with everything else you mentioned about human rights and conserving the world etc. etc.

I meant living in the moment as in being aware in a meditational sort of way, the way others are talking about. Mostly I wanted to talk about the future-past thing. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Also that isn't changing the future. The causality for beginners thing.

----------


## Timothy Paradox

:p no problem, misunderstandings happen often on the internet.  :tongue2: 
By the way, do you believe the future is fixed? Because I think it changes with every choice we make. I mean, if you'd travel to the future now (let's say 6 months) and take a look around, then go back, do something, and then travel 'back to the future'...wouldn't the future look different then?




> Well I was only regarding your first post. That was careless of me. I misunderstood what you said and totaly messed up everything by "thinking out loud". So I'm not what the above posts might seem to make me.
> 
> Personaly a lot of things would make me happy. Making other people happy along with everything else you mentioned about human rights and conserving the world etc. etc.
> 
> I meant living in the moment as in being aware in a meditational sort of way, the way others are talking about. Mostly I wanted to talk about the future-past thing. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> Also that isn't changing the future. The causality for beginners thing.

----------


## Bonsay

I believe that changing the future is just an illusion. Future the way I look at it doesn't really exist. The part when we say, what will happen if I do this, is the illusion part. When you look at the past you see the former future. There is only one past so there is only one future. Disregarding the quantum stuff, the effects of which I sadly(or gladly?  :tongue2: ) don't feel.

In this scenario you assume that traveling to the past is possible. If you went to the future, if it's predetermined, the thing you would then do in the past would already be a part of the future you were in before. If you went further back then there would either be a paradox, or a "new universe" because of the quantum stuff. I don't know that exactly, it's too much for me at the moment. If you know..please tell  :tongue2:

----------


## Timothy Paradox

I believe that travelling to the past would not create a paradox, but create an alternate timeline instead. Or maybe, this alterative timeline already exists. Perhaps that is the 5th dimension.  If you had done something different at a point in the past, the present would look different..Maybe you DID do something different, creating a timeline parralel with ours...
Because there is an infinite amount of thing that could be different it would also make sense if there was an infinite amount of dimensions...

Blabla no one can prove anything yet  :smiley: 
Just a theory, or no, a hypothesis.





> I believe that changing the future is just an illusion. Future the way I look at it doesn't really exist. The part when we say, what will happen if I do this, is the illusion part. When you look at the past you see the former future. There is only one past so there is only one future. Disregarding the quantum stuff, the effects of which I sadly(or gladly? ) don't feel.
> 
> In this scenario you assume that traveling to the past is possible. If you went to the future, if it's predetermined, the thing you would then do in the past would already be a part of the future you were in before. If you went further back then there would either be a paradox, or a "new universe" because of the quantum stuff. I don't know that exactly, it's too much for me at the moment. If you know..please tell

----------


## three and four

Hey, Im glad you two made up!  :smiley:  (I was worried there for a second).

Would you say that arguments due to misunderstanding cause us to slip out of being in the moment?  :wink2: 

About the future: for some very strange reason (maybe due to "quantum stuff") I have this notion that the future is at the same time a field of infinite possibilities and yet also totally pre-determined. Go figure...

----------


## Bonsay

> Blabla no one can prove anything yet 
> Just a theory, or no, a hypothesis.



I checked around and I think that time travel would be travel into other parallel universes. So paradoxes wouldn't exist. But is this actual time travel then  :tongue2: ? Wouldn't that mean that you could end up in a giant cookie parallel universe?

Also someone who wants to make a time machine?

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Woa that vid is awesome!

----------


## Bonsay

The ones in the related videos sections are better actually. I posted a crappy one.

----------


## alfy984

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=45132

----------


## three and four

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.

----------


## three and four

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?

----------


## Quark

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.

----------


## alfy984

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.

----------


## PaleRider

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.

----------


## three and four

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...

----------


## Timothy Paradox

Descartes could have been wrong. He's human.




> 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.

----------


## alfy984

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?

----------


## SynapseSnap

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.





> 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?



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.

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.

----------


## SourCherryBoy

> But think of something really simple: close your eyes and visualize a square, know that its four sides are equal, that each angle is 90 degrees, “see” that perfect shape. There: you just used “reason” to do some basic geometry: don’t tell me that this took you out of the moment! (I’ve not read Plato’s Theory of Forms lately, but I think he says something along these lines: that “ideas” such as geometric forms are in fact more “real” than everyday reality



First of all - great thread, indeed. Lots of interesting posts to read here.

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  :tongue2: ) 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!

----------


## Timothy Paradox

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.




> 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?

----------


## MrBeelzy

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

----------


## Moonbeam

> Also someone who wants to make a time machine?



 
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.

----------


## PaleRider

> 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...



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.

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!

----------


## PaleRider

> Descartes could have been wrong. He's human.



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?

----------


## MrBeelzy

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.

----------


## three and four

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.  :wink2:

----------


## three and four

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.  :smiley: 

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.

----------


## PaleRider

> 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:[/FONT]
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/19/scitime119.xml



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!

I think "time" and "reality" and "existence" are some of those man-made concepts for convenience, kind of like chicken nuggets  :smiley:

----------


## plude

> Here are some excellent insights into the nature of reality...
> 
> Esoteric Agenda, part 12
> Esoteric Agenda, part 13



Those are the deepest videos I have seen in a while.

----------


## pj

> 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 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.

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.

----------


## three and four

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  :smiley:

----------


## pj

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.

----------


## LucidFlanders

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.

----------


## three and four

Sorry LF, I'm not sure I follow you!

----------


## three and four

PJ, thanks so much for your ideas  I feel that this discussion could go on for a very long time. However, it would also take us way off topic (and Id have to start quoting Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett...). So maybe well pick up some other time!

Id also like to thank others who contributed to this thread  it really got me thinking about some fundamental things, and I think Ive been able to reach a few new (but perhaps not definitive) conclusions.

 :smiley:

----------


## pj

It has been my pleasure to engage in a discussion at this level without it degenerating into what we have become famous for here at DV.  Perhaps there is yet hope.

I might even do it again some day.

----------


## Jerad

Sorry pj this is a little off topic, but what do you mean by "it degenerating into what you have become famous for here at DV"?

----------


## pj

> Sorry pj this is a little off topic, but what do you mean by "it degenerating into what you have become famous for here at DV"?



Poke around the Off Topic forums a bit and you'll understand.

----------


## rockachopa

Well I think to wake up from this dream you just have to die heh.

----------


## ChaybaChayba

> I think that is my most reliable reality check. If I'm not happy, then I've lost lucidity.



Very interesting points PJ, especially your first post on reality checking irl. I also started to do this recently, lucid dreaming is much like meditation imo.




> I’ve had quite a number of very unlikely coincidences happen to me over the years which, depending on my mood, make me very suspicious about the nature of reality.



Are you talking about telepathy? Law of attraction? Resonance of thoughts?

----------

