Thread: We can prove dream sharing is real

I concur, shadow. I've stuck it out a few days now. I'm not just going to go away.

I use the word mystical because my vocabulary in this area is desperately limited. I think as one becomes more familiar with a subject, their ability to specify precisely what concepts they intend increases. But, as I have proven, I am not well versed in this particular area as of yet. And only a few days ago, I did "approach someone who shares dreams and tell them that you believe their experiences are unreal, because they don't have a model (mechanism) for them..." and that does make me ignorant of this phenomenon, be it factual, false, or something entirely different from what you and I expect. I was exactly who you described and I apologize for diving in without doing my homework, and being an obnoxious child. There is something about the internet that stirs a little of that in all of us, I think. I try very hard not to behave that way in life away from the computer.

I've grown to respect you and your opinions. I hope you do not judge me on my terrible introduction to this forum.

Originally Posted by shadowofwind

As I've suggested, I think its perfectly reasonable for a person to decide not to be interested in things like shared dreaming, on the grounds that the manner of exploration it appears to require is 'not you'. But having made that choice, if you approach someone who shares dreams and tell them you believe their experiences are unreal because they don't have a model (mechanism) for them, all you're doing is telling them that you're ignorant. And not that different from the theists and other ideologues in that regard. If nobody here is doing that, if its more in the spirit of finding out what other people think, then that's great. I just wanted to try to summarize where I'm coming from and where I think Sivason is coming from.

Yep, pretty dead on. I can see why Sageous tries not to involve himself in these threads. I think everything I said was pretty sound, yet I do get a slight feeling of being attacked. One guy questions the validity of my education and throws in some odd comment about Einstien? Whats that about. If anyone thinks they read that I disbelieve science, like the big bang and dark matter, they did not really read my post carefully. Quantum physics and all of that is not modern physics. We still are basing our science on Newton, and now some Nuclear science has been added. That is modern science. Theoretical science is leading to the next modern science, but it is still theoretical.
I have been accussed of having no clue about cosmology. I said Dark Matter has not been observed. Flat out true. Observing the effect of something is not observing the thing. They can not see it or detect it other than by its effect. I also have been told someone enjoys rainbows more than me, because they do not believe in god? What? Are you guys actually saying, I enjoy science less or its masterful effects, because I have spiritual beliefs? That is a hard thing to argue,,, some how I am less of a scientist, because I do not limit my beliefs? Oh and less of an enjoyer of life.

The comment about evolution meant that the ability to experience mystical things does not have to have evolved. I actually mean that it may exist simply because a creative force may have wanted such a thing to exist. Oh no! What is this hippy freak saying? Let's insult him a little more.

Maybe you guys are having to much fun finding ways to be snide?

Simplify my point. Being able to uncover the mechanism of something does nothing to disprove the soul or any thing else. Have fun insulting each other, or what ever. No hard feeling, but I do not think my point of view is going to help anyone, so I will look for threads that may benifit from my input.

I don't mind you, sivason. My post in regards to the rainbow had nothing to do with belief in a god, I don't know what you're talking about. I apologize for saying you don't enjoy it as much, but you did come across as mistrustful or ignorant about some aspects of science(we're all ignorant about a lot of science, there's so much). I've done my best not to call your words hippy freak sayings, as well. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable talking with me, and if I offend you then make it known and if it's an offense that I genuinely didn't intend, I'll apologize, because sometimes in a long post I'm concentrating too hard on what I'm trying to put into words, and some real hurtful things can slip through.

I would argue that quantum physics and relativity are modern science. They are a part of the Standard Model. They are included in modern science books. They are used to describe modern scientific problems. Much of science is theoretical, but theories are at the heart of science. They're a compilation of evidence and experience and tons and tons of math.

I don't even care to talk about dark matter anymore, I simply don't have the knowledge to speak on the subject.

I'm sorry I'm snide, sivason. I tried really hard to answer your post. I was trying to share myself with you and I hope you didn't just get caught up in my rude parts. It took a good part of my afternoon because I wanted to be thorough. If you're heading out, I hope you at least have a better idea of who I am, likable or not. I have benefited from hearing your point of view.

Later man,
OutlawPig.

Originally Posted by OutlawPig

I don't mind you, sivason. My post in regards to the rainbow had nothing to do with belief in a god, I don't know what you're talking about. I apologize for saying you don't enjoy it as much, but you did come across as mistrustful or ignorant about some aspects of science(we're all ignorant about a lot of science, there's so much). I've done my best not to call your words hippy freak sayings, as well. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable talking with me, and if I offend you then make it known and if it's an offense that I genuinely didn't intend, I'll apologize, because sometimes in a long post I'm concentrating too hard on what I'm trying to put into words, and some real hurtful things can slip through.

I would argue that quantum physics and relativity are modern science. They are a part of the Standard Model. They are included in modern science books. They are used to describe modern scientific problems. Much of science is theoretical, but theories are at the heart of science. They're a compilation of evidence and experience and tons and tons of math.

I don't even care to talk about dark matter anymore, I simply don't have the knowledge to speak on the subject.

I'm sorry I'm snide, sivason. I tried really hard to answer your post. I was trying to share myself with you and I hope you didn't just get caught up in my rude parts. It took a good part of my afternoon because I wanted to be thorough. If you're heading out, I hope you at least have a better idea of who I am, likable or not. I have benefited from hearing your point of view.

Later man,
OutlawPig.

I did enjoy reading your post. Thanks for expressing it. I am not sure where you get the idea (incorrectly) that i am ignorant of science. I did state that I am fully educated in a science field. It comes down to this, the insult I seem to feel is that some posters seem to think belief in unexplainable spiritual things, somehow makes me less educated or aware of science.
One reason I am moving on is that Atheism is such a strong conviction based on only the persons feelings that it is very similar to argueing against the atheists religion. My own religious beliefs are very maluable and not part of a dogma or certain religion. The atheistic belief system is something its followers defend with the same passion as Catholisism. There is never a point in debating with some one who invests there passion in a belief system. Do not think I am calling you rigid, or saying you are that person. If anyone cares, reread everything I said, and see if any of the snide remarks even make sense. I would be interested if anyone can quote where I have misunderstood or mis-stated a science issue? You or the other guy seem to think I can not understand science and yet believe in mystical things. My whole point is there is no reason they should be mutaully exclusive. I also was saying the outlandish thing, simply that our understanding of science is revieling wierd crazy hard to fathom things, things that lend more power to the idea of a creative force and mystical events, rather than in anyway disproving them.
Peace be with you.

Mindraker,,,,You say, 'Oh come on, you claim to have a Doctorate in Science.' WOW, whatever. Insulting. I am not wrong to say we can not account for most of the universe. Terms like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy are as Shadowofwind states 'fudge factors'. It is a way of saying we know a missing peice of info must go here. No scientist that I have heard of has claimed to know what either thing are, they only know they are missing a major part of the equation. As in, we do not have science to account for the universe being here or being how it is.

So many words.

Science, mysticism, metaphysics, faith, "concrete" proof, snide comments, high emotion, deep (and thoroughly enjoyable) philosophical manifestos, autobiographical gems, anger, angst, humility, umbrage, apology, curricula vitae, pissing contests, and so much more. All wrapped around an OP by a guy of questionable qualification who is long gone and who many here totally outclass in wisdom and depth of knowledge: Let's prove that shared dreaming is real.

Why is this subject so important? Why does it generate so much heartfelt and downright livid conversation? Why, in truth, care at all?

I think it's because shared dreaming is one of those aspects of LD'ing, no, of mind, that falls so deeply into the "You had to be there" category, with the added charm that to exist it must defy known physics, common sense, and common knowledge. Not a great mixture for cooperative intellectual exchange, I think, but an excellent trigger for exploration into the mindful stuff that many of us hold dear, and deeply desire to be true.

Shared dreaming is an amazing concept, I think ... not only for what it potentially does, but for what it draws from those who care about it (or are deeply annoyed by it).

I have no idea why I'm making this post. I guess it's just that I've been following this thread closely, and have been very impressed by the levels of depth, disclosure, and effort you guys have achieved here, but all along have had the notion that there is simply no acceptable conclusion to this excellent conversation.

Why? Because shared dreaming exists only for those who have experienced it (or by extension choose to believe on faith alone the testimonials of those folks), and literally cannot exist for those who have not experienced it (or by extension those who choose to believe on faith alone their testimonials of those folks).

Shared dreaming transcends science and nature as we currently know them while simultaneously residing firmly in the realms of human imagination and, yes, perhaps the human condition itself (aka: shared dreaming must exist because, well, It does!)

It's the Dreaming World's abortion argument I think.

So, all apologies, if necessary, for intruding with these probably obvious thoughts. I hope, oddly, that you'll continue the conversation ... This is some serious shit, regardless of the subject!

And all this without input from WakingNomad and Atras!

[Ignore my ramble if you choose -- I'm not proud!]

I like you, Sageous, and I'm glad to hear your thoughts.

Sivason, I haven't made this clear, but in the case of your explanation of examples of science's blind spots(which science will readily agree that it doesn't know a whole lot about them yet), I couldn't care less that you believe in spirits or related concepts. I was judging based on your, what I thought were poor, explanations with an ingrained bias, the bias manifested mainly here:

... but that is only due to them hating to say it suddenly appeared... with a question mark and cute name...

I overreacted. I've talked to you privately about it, my judgement of you was based off of experience with people who legitimately don't know a thing about science, and I hashed you in with them because I got a little irked by that part of your post, and that was wrong and hurtful of me to do that.

Originally Posted by OutlawPig

I like you, Sageous, and I'm glad to hear your thoughts.

Sivason, I haven't made this clear, but in the case of your explanation of examples of science's blind spots(which science will readily agree that it doesn't know a whole lot about them yet), I couldn't care less that you believe in spirits or related concepts. I was judging based on your, what I thought were poor, explanations with an ingrained bias, the bias manifested mainly here:

I overreacted. I've talked to you privately about it, my judgement of you was based off of experience with people who legitimately don't know a thing about science, and I hashed you in with them because I got a little irked by that part of your post, and that was wrong and hurtful of me to do that.

I just went backand re-watched "How the Universe Works" session 1 episode 1 "The Big Bang." Some may argue that it can not count as a valid source, but it is what i have access to. Many scientists do say that everything seems to have come out of nothing. This is an accepted enough point of view for it to be in the show. Many believe there was nothing and then suddenly there was all the mass in the universe. I did not make that part up. Some scientists cannot stomach the idea! They instead choose to believe that everything was still there, just compressed into an area smaller than an atom. The way they seem to be looking at it is requiring the use of new time units. The unit of time is a second broken into hundreds of trillions of portions (or much smaller actually). They say it must have expanded to the size of many many light years in the space of a single second. My only point is that if it was not there and then it was there, why did it need to expand at millions of times the speed of light? It could have appeared already light years across. However, that sounds to much like "God." So those people choose to believe it must have been condensed to a tiny point. A point that must have already existed and then expanded. I am only stating that they want to avoid the idea that everything suddenly appeared. If we know it was light years across at one second, and not there at zero seconds, they choose to think it must have expanded, while I think it may have just appeared allready light years across.
It is barely connected to the idea of shared dreams, except that many good scientists can not allow themselves to believe in a sudden creation. Maybe it offends their atheistic idiology in some cases. They do not want to leave room for the idea of "God" or "a creative force" instantly creating anything, much less the entire universe. There are also going to be scientists who refuse to consider explainations that seem to point to concepts, like the soul, and shared dreaming hints in that direction. It is a form of prejudging. It is basically saying, that the topic may only be plausable if something is going on, that I have already made my mind up on. It would be like a Christian claiming reincarnation can not be real, because they have already invested in a different faith based version.

Originally Posted by sivason

Mindraker,,,,You say, 'Oh come on, you claim to have a Doctorate in Science.' WOW, whatever. Insulting.

You're the one who made the claim; not me. I don't have to prove anything. Just like the original poster of this thread who has to prove his claim about shared dreaming -- the burden is on his shoulders, not ours.

Originally Posted by sivason

I just went backand re-watched "How the Universe Works" session 1 episode 1 "The Big Bang." Some may argue that it can not count as a valid source, but it is what i have access to. Many scientists do say that everything seems to have come out of nothing. This is an accepted enough point of view for it to be in the show. Many believe there was nothing and then suddenly there was all the mass in the universe. I did not make that part up. Some scientists cannot stomach the idea! They instead choose to believe that everything was still there, just compressed into an area smaller than an atom. The way they seem to be looking at it is requiring the use of new time units. The unit of time is a second broken into hundreds of trillions of portions (or much smaller actually). They say it must have expanded to the size of many many light years in the space of a single second. My only point is that if it was not there and then it was there, why did it need to expand at millions of times the speed of light? It could have appeared already light years across. However, that sounds to much like "God." So those people choose to believe it must have been condensed to a tiny point. A point that must have already existed and then expanded. I am only stating that they want to avoid the idea that everything suddenly appeared. If we know it was light years across at one second, and not there at zero seconds, they choose to think it must have expanded, while I think it may have just appeared allready light years across.
It is barely connected to the idea of shared dreams, except that many good scientists can not allow themselves to believe in a sudden creation. Maybe it offends their atheistic idiology in some cases. They do not want to leave room for the idea of "God" or "a creative force" instantly creating anything, much less the entire universe. There are also going to be scientists who refuse to consider explainations that seem to point to concepts, like the soul, and shared dreaming hints in that direction. It is a form of prejudging. It is basically saying, that the topic may only be plausable if something is going on, that I have already made my mind up on. It would be like a Christian claiming reincarnation can not be real, because they have already invested in a different faith based version.

Like outlawpig stated earlier thats you are mixing in your emotions into this. If scientists concluded that spacetime just appeared there would be no problem, expansion is just the logical explanation, it has nothing to do with god. Also most scientists believe that the bigbang happened in a huge area not a single point, and most will have no problem with something just appearing. They just don't want to accept that their is a "god" because it would be useless, they want to find out absolutely everything there is and you can't do that if you leave space for a god.
Btw the theories on dark matter progress incredibly fast and are widely accepted because they fit in so well. By chance this was released yesterday Dark matter space superstructures observed for first time — RT

Originally Posted by Mindraker

You're the one who made the claim; not me. I don't have to prove anything. Just like the original poster of this thread who has to prove his claim about shared dreaming -- the burden is on his shoulders, not ours.

Sure thing. I would not assume one of you were lying if you said you have what ever credential or skill. Maybe you are the type to randomly make claims, so you suspect others. I have no good reason to wish anyone here to even know that fact about me in general. I do not mention it except where my point of view, being so odd, needs the counter balance of me honestly being an authority. If for some reason you wish me to show you proof of my education, I guess you can PM me and I will provide the needed info. However, if you do, then perhaps when you see you have needlessly insulted someone, you should post an offical appology here?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Btw the theories on dark matter progress incredibly fast and are widely accepted because they fit in so well. By chance this was released yesterday Dark matter space superstructures observed for first time — RT

I read that before I made the post about dark matter. The article just says they can tell that an unseen source of gravity exists. They are just solidly confirming that some areas of space exude gravity. I do not doubt that something is causing gravity, that does not meet the normal idea of matter. However we are surrounded by dark matter and it does not seem to be observable. I realize that some of you feel the need to reject ideas that claim any kind of guiding conciousness, and that is just fine. The only point I have about dark matter, is that things we can not see or interact with have huge sway over the galaxy. In my version of things, that is that this is actually a kind of dream, much like the matrix but not a computer, not everything has to arise from a random classing of forces. I actually believe that the extra gravity, we are now calling dark matter was added to the equation by a god like guiding awareness. The model would not stay stable unless it was given more gravity in some areas and none in others, so a new thing springs into being. Poof, the guiding awareness now has a stable realm to work with. I also believe that the expansion of the universe is the same thing. The god like dreamer wants it to be bigger, so it gets bigger. Suddenly a force of some kind which they are calling dark energy is needed, so again poof a new thing is created. Seek the answers to how this physical realm is being maintained. I am sure a science answer will be there at the bottom of any thing. that is because the dreamer has decided to have things that way. Thus, I need no understanding of how shared dreaming would work. I assume anything the creative force decides should exist will exist and the science will be there to make it real.

How is that for crazy stuff?

I completely understand and I must say it is a very effiecient way of living and I respect that. On a practical level I would love to be able to deal with situations like you. But I love to route things out and want to find an explanation for everything, Off course this is what science thrives on.

Some scientists cannot stomach the idea

Some scientists will not surrender to not knowing. The information we have available is that the universe is expanding isotropically, meaning in every direction uniformly. The idea was first based on a study by Hubble that showed that most distant objects have a redshift in their electromagnetic spectra. That means that as the light was emitted from luminous bodies that were headed very speedily away, it was stretched out towards the "redder" side, which contains longer waves. It's like sound from a car passing by you, the sound waves are compressed when coming near you and it sounds higher, but as the car drives away the pitch drops noticeably, because the waves are stretched out.

We can know that these objects are not simply "red", because we use a spectrograph, a tool that separates incoming light into a spectrum, a "rainbow" of sorts, leaving very clear black lines where no light is coming from the object. It looks much like a bar code. Each element has its own distinct fingerprint. Red shifted galaxies in the distance have the sort of spectrograph that we would expect, except that the further away the object is, the more the lines have moved up the "red" side of the spectrum, simply shifting their position. Hence, redshift.

From this we can extrapolate that at one point in the past, the universe was much closer together, as objects at the end of the light horizon, the end of what we can see, would have been set in motion an unfathomably long time ago.

I am familiar with the basics of the big bang, that it "came from a point smaller than an atom", that you aren't making that up. I don't know why the conversation/argument has turned in this direction but you aught to learn about it. I'm sure shadowofwind has some things to say about it, as well.

Metric expansion, that space is expanding uniformly, is virtually accepted by all because it lies on a wealth of evidence. Frankly I can't write all of it. Google it. On the the big bang:

Big-bang like predictions first emerged in the 1920s. People used relativity to predict a "starting point" of rapid expansion, then followed by uniform, isometric expansion of space in all directions without an actual center. It's difficult to imagine, because it's different from everything in common human experience. One common example is a balloon with marker dots on it. As you blow it up, all of the points grow further away from each other. The bad thing about that visualization is that you say, "but what about the center of the balloon?" Space is the material of the balloon; not the air inside of it. The analogy is limited.

The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, or CMB, was discovered after it was predicted by big bang theorists. A surface of last scattering, where a pretty homogenous cloud of radiation was in the background of everything, red shifted to show that it is expanding in every direction. To explain expansion a little better, gravity has overcome expansion in small pockets that we call galaxies, and clusters of galaxies. Lone galaxies and clusters in the background have clear redshifts, not so much with the local group that is actually slowly headed closer to us, thus "blue shifted".

Other evidence, the theory predicted lone pockets of gas early in the beginning, consisting largely of the simplest element, hydrogen. Then, as they were compressed by gravity, they became steadily brighter. The first primeval stars were forming, beginning to undergo nuclear fission and fusion. From these, heavier elements were formed, ejected in the death of stars and spread out into the dust that is common in "old galaxies". Gravity forced these new nebulae and their formed stars into larger cosmological structures. Large collections of stars, whirling around huge compressed points of bright light, we have the galaxies.

These are often found in groups, clusters, consistent with big bang predictions of larger formations coming into being as time passed. Larger than that, we can see sorts of "threads", or lines where objects are grouped by gravity, snaking and weaving throughout the cosmos much like a collection of soap bubbles, where the matter is found in the "bubble" part, and there is a whole lot of empty space in-between everything.

Recently, in 2011, pockets of "pristine gas" were discovered-- pure hydrogen. Massive pockets of hydrogen(we can tell by their spectrographs). Strong evidence indeed of an early universe whose physical matter is almost exclusively hydrogen. That is why we have a great abundance of light elements-- loads of it is left over from the big bang itself.

As for things expanding faster than light, it's quite the problem to explain, isn't it?

It is believed, not because scientists are all huffy and offended by other ideas, but because it is a solution to a problem and it is supported by some amount of evidence. This is why it triumphs your "f!$% it, god did it" mentality. You've said so many times that "it seems to me like", and "I think it just"... Don't you see that it doesn't matter what you think, because you aren't out there doing mind frying research and looking at data, and you do not have a background in astrophysics so it's very easy of you to say, whelp, "I think it just ___", and there's no pressure on you to explain yourself. You have an idea about the way things work so you can see everything through that lens. However, science seeks to "remove the lens" in that way, to actually view the universe without preconceptions and biases. You think science can just say "god did it"? Absolutely not, not until god turns around and says "here I am!". They are in the pursuit of knowledge, and do not just "believe in" X or Y willy nilly. You say "why can't just believe ___", because that is anti-science! You don't just believe based on what is easiest to believe in!

... Some scientists cannot stomach the idea... They instead choose to believe... So those people choose to believe... they want to avoid the idea that everything suddenly appeared... can not allow themselves to believe in a sudden creation... Maybe it offends their atheistic idiology in some cases...

What are you talking about? There aren't just a load of astrophysicists walking around saying "bollocks to god, I'm going to fudge a way for the universe to work without him!" Science dives into it without preconceptions of a god or gods, and in order for you to rest on that, you have to previously have formed ideas of it. The god or gods that you and others believe responsible do not emerge from the evidence, they were present in your mind before ever viewing the evidence. That's all I'm going to say for now.

I didn't answer much about the infinitesimally small early universe, because we don't know enough right now, but we're working on it. I don't know enough to answer you. I'm shocked to see so clearly an example of saying "science doesn't know X, so wouldn't it just be easier to say it was god?"

Originally Posted by sivason

Sure thing. I would not assume one of you were lying if you said you have what ever credential or skill. Maybe you are the type to randomly make claims, so you suspect others. I have no good reason to wish anyone here to even know that fact about me in general. I do not mention it except where my point of view, being so odd, needs the counter balance of me honestly being an authority. If for some reason you wish me to show you proof of my education, I guess you can PM me and I will provide the needed info. However, if you do, then perhaps when you see you have needlessly insulted someone, you should post an offical appology here?

And off to the ignore list you go.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

And off to the ignore list you go.

You are a dick you know that, why can this thread not stay clear of the emotional bullshit.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

You are a dick you know that, why can this thread not stay clear of the emotional bullshit.

Yeah, well, at least I can admit to that. That's more than I can say for others on this thread.

sivason:

I have the feeling that the study/science/whatever crap isn't going to convince you of anything, because it reaffirms your preconception that science makes true what needs to be true for the dream. You have a romantic philosophy based on emotion, and that is fundamentally different from science. I would like to, if I may, make a small appeal to you.

Suppose that we were put in place by the dreamer, purposed with exploring and discovering and mapping out the cosmos. Imagine yourself as the god of a dream, stretching out fantastic amounts of time. You are all powerful and not limited by memory and imagination. If I were this dreamer, and I put in place the seeds for life to emerge in my beautiful cosmos, then damned if I wouldn't be thrilled to see them exploring and discovering. I'd be proud. I'd get to share my creation with someone. They'd get to learn about and document all of the things I spent so much time designing, and I'd get to watch them grow as a species and mature, and settle comfortably into their own little niche, the learners and observers.

You have a logical inconsistency when talking about your dreamer. If they are all powerful, and the architect of this dream world, and you base the rest of your beliefs on this assumption, then why not assume that in their wisdom, the dreamer put in place these mechanisms because it wasn't going to settle for a cheap, second-rate sort of universe where it needed to rush to dream up new things when its creations asked too many questions.

I would look on my creation like a proud father on his son, not annoyed that the universe I had so meticulously designed was sprouting intelligent life.

Originally Posted by Mindraker

Yeah, well, at least I can admit to that. That's more than I can say for others on this thread.

See ignoring someone like sivason has no function. On topics like this you should disregard your emotions. I feel that If someone disagrees with me in a thread I will not feel different towards him in another because thats only mature. Even if insults were thrown, forget and forgiving keeps the atmosphere good and makes arguements enjoyable. By ignoring him you are excluding him from any future interactions. Outlawpig has already proven this many times in this thread with respect and wise words.

I assume it really does not matter, but can any of youu figure out why this guy is acting like I did or said something to offend him? Honest critisism accepted if you see it. I think the first of any interaction was him questioning my education, and then saying he would ignore me, when I offered to provide the credentials. If I missed some part where i attacked this guy, I am ok with someone pointing it out. Maybe I do owe an appology and am to dense to see it?



-------

Originally Posted by OutlawPig

sivason:

I have the feeling that the study/science/whatever crap isn't going to convince you of anything, because it reaffirms your preconception that science makes true what needs to be true for the dream. You have a romantic philosophy based on emotion, and that is fundamentally different from science. I would like to, if I may, make a small appeal to you.

Suppose that we were put in place by the dreamer, purposed with exploring and discovering and mapping out the cosmos. Imagine yourself as the god of a dream, stretching out fantastic amounts of time. You are all powerful and not limited by memory and imagination. If I were this dreamer, and I put in place the seeds for life to emerge in my beautiful cosmos, then damned if I wouldn't be thrilled to see them exploring and discovering. I'd be proud. I'd get to share my creation with someone. They'd get to learn about and document all of the things I spent so much time designing, and I'd get to watch them grow as a species and mature, and settle comfortably into their own little niche, the learners and observers.

You have a logical inconsistency when talking about your dreamer. If they are all powerful, and the architect of this dream world, and you base the rest of your beliefs on this assumption, then why not assume that in their wisdom, the dreamer put in place these mechanisms because it wasn't going to settle for a cheap, second-rate sort of universe where it needed to rush to dream up new things when its creations asked too many questions.

I would look on my creation like a proud father on his son, not annoyed that the universe I had so meticulously designed was sprouting intelligent life.

I agree with you completely. I am not suggesting the laws of science are just springing into place, I assume most of the things were settled upon in the very beginning in order to make it all work. I certainly never intended to say we should not explore and try to understand everything. My radical point of view, is clearly that, a point of view. Here it is again, nice and radical,,, I feel that science is able to be cratfed by the creative force in a way that can make anything possable. I do not limit myself to only believing mundane things. I believe in a soul, so I also believe we could find the science behind what the soul is and how it works. I believe that god like awarenesses guide the creation proccess, so I believe we can find the science that explain how a conciousness of that type can direct and influance the physical realm. And so on.
I do think some are taking me for a nay sayer as far as science, and I am very into science, and have a deep enjoyment of molecular biology and chemisty, in fact having spent hunderds of hours studying that kind of thing. The main topic here was 'proving' shared dreaming. I am not arguing any point with any person. I love science and do believe a mechanism exists to explain how anything happens. I do not however feel that humans at this time in history have the knowledge or tools to honestly explore ideas like power of prayer, shared dreaming, or say ESP. The fact that the species I am part of is not yet able to break down the hows and whys, should not keep me from considering that experiences I have had, may be of that nature. To fail to be open to ideas like a creative force or that dreams may be linked to ideas like an every present soul, is a choice you can make. It is not at all required that a good scientist limit his beliefs to what can currently be proven.
I think we can not prove dream sharing. I do not think that means it is not real. I also do not think a scientist having a spiritual take on things in any way compramises his ability to reason or be a good scientist.
It is a bit pointless to say my point of view is based on my feelings and is not science. Of course it is not science. I have not attempted to argue that a belief system is science. Plain and simple it, like all belief systems, is a personal choice to believe. I can have a belief system AND explore the scientific nature of what can be observed and measured. You can be a good and effective non atheist scientist, and you can believe in god and still be a highly effective scientist.

Originally Posted by sivason

I assume it really does not matter, but can any of youu figure out why this guy is acting like I did or said something to offend him? Honest critisism accepted if you see it. I think the first of any interaction was him questioning my education, and then saying he would ignore me, when I offered to provide the credentials. If I missed some part where i attacked this guy, I am ok with someone pointing it out. Maybe I do owe an appology and am to dense to see it?

Sivason, you are one of the most polite, level headed, mild mannered, well spoken, wise and diplomatic person on this forum. If you didn't notice you insulting someone, that's because it didn't happen.

Sorry all for butting in your conversation, but I have been following it from the beginning, having interest in space related "stuff".

Certainly he didn't. I choose to ignore Mindraker. He's got a bug up his arse.

So, guys, I'm going to have to be away from the internet for a week. :/ And shadowofwind told me that he would be otherwise occupied for the next two days or so. The conversation was really maturing. I hope we can pick it up again, at least casually if not as persistent as it has been, because it really is a nice talk and I've heard some ideas that I hadn't heard of before. I think we can all agree that hearing from new perspectives is enlightening in some way. It's good to know all the kinds of people that are out there.

Sivason, I hope we can discuss theism, polytheism, atheism some more, because I obviously am not exposed to all religious ideas, and I think that you have some misconceptions about atheism. Looking forward to it.

Goodbye for a while, all. You're great people and I respect you.

keep your atheist thiest debates outside of this forum

its stupid to think that you can use intellectual words to force someone to believe one way or another, or worse, that you get to insult them if they didn't conform to YOUR world view

^^ Huh? I think your anger might be a bit misplaced, juroara.

Aside from the notion that dream-sharing's metaphysical base invites discussion about religion and even the foundations of everything (which is what religions claim to know), and by extension proof of dream-sharing will lead folks to defend or attempt to prove the foundations of what they believe, I think if you read through the thread you'll find that there was very little prostletizing going on.

Sure, there were lots of uncalled-for attacks and immature insults being thrown about, but they were pretty much all of a personal nature, and not attempts to tell people to conform to their world view.

Indeed, the opposite is happening here, I think. People with dramatically different -- and deeply held -- world views are allowing each other to speak to those views, to defend their very foundations, and folks on both sides are listening. That is a rarity, both ion this forum and in reality itself; please don't bristle at it. Instead, I suggest you take a second look at what's really being said here, and feel free to contribute your own thoughts. Also, feel free to judge us if you must, but base those judgements on the actual bad things we're saying -- like personal insults -- and not on things that are simply not there.

Yes, at first I took the same attitude, that of not wantimg to stir up the defensive hackels of any atheist. My reason, as stated, while not actually a religion it is subject to passion on the part of the belief holder.
I think in this case, it has been fine. The debate is topic related. Athesism is not a specific sect of a religion and the less atheistic folk are not slandering the right to be atheist or calling it stupid.
No one has tried to slander or belittle the athestic point of view.
Those who are taking the line of hard science may have got defensive and even insulting at first. Had it stayed that way, I would agree. Beyond Dreaming was designed to provide a place removed from such critics.
I agree that a debate or discussion of Athesim does not belong here. But, so far I think it was on topic and not a big deal.