Thread: What is the evidence that dreams are produced by the brain ?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Speaking of cutting and pasting:

I came across the following quote in David Brin's Existence, and it seemed relevant to this thread (he may have been quoting Tom Robbins, BTW, so we might have a triple cut-and-paste going on here ):

"Science gives man what he needs.
But magic gives man what he wants.

For all its beauty, honesty, and effectiveness at improving the human condition, science demands a terrible price -- that we accept what experiments tell us about the universe, whether we like it or not. It's about consensus and teamwork and respectful critical argument, working with, and through, natural law. It requires that we utter, frequently, those hateful words -- "I might be wrong."

On the other hand, magic is what happens when we convince ourselves that something is, even when it isn't. Subjective Truth, winning over mere objective fact. The will, triumphing over all else. No wonder, even after the cornucopia of wealth and knowledge engendered by science, magic remains more popular, more embedded in the human heart."

Again, just thought I'd share, because it seemed relevant here...

Oh Sageous - phantastisch!!
This is a jewel - and if I would have had it myself - I would have brought it in here - absolutely no doubt at all.
Going into my notorious copy-paste-department - and with your connotations, as to where is comes from (including you wink.gif)!

How I have missed this type of topics xD

People in general and science tell us that dreams are produced by the brain. But what is the evidence of that ?

The fact that dream content originates from memories.
The fact we use the same mechanics to perceive a waking sensation as we use to dream it.
The fact that there is so far no reason to think that any sensory perception can occur without the brain, or that anything else beside the brain is responsible for those perceptions.

For exemple Peridic Table was discovered by Mendeleïev in dreams, there is an agent in the CIA that uses remote viewing, and so much of his discoveries were "real", "true". There is so much people who have "experience out of body" and see later that what they saw was real. And so much more other experiences... How can all this come from the brain ? Is it crazy to just say "coincidence" or imagination ? Or when you say to people who had NDE : it is just your imagination... For me it is wrong to have only theory and criticise those who "experience"... Because experience is direct knowledge. Theory is just opinion.

Argument from ignorance. It's already somewhat confusing watching you being skeptic of science, which is considered the pinnacle of skepticism. It's like you're saying you're skeptic of skepticism. Like someone said, science doesn't work with beliefs, and theories are not opinions, they are models of interpretation based on facts from the observable world. But you seem to act under the assumption that if something can't be explained, then it's because our theory is wrong. Actually, those singular facts can be explained. It's an established fact that sleep/dream work as a memory regulation mechanism, so it's not that impressive that many people found solutions for their problems while dreaming. Besides, you're not even accounting for the probability of that happening, because the only reports you got are the famous ones.

When we consider that the brain is only a receptor

The brain is not a receptor, that is a fact. For starters, if the brain was a simple receptor, then you wouldn't be able to see properly, due the gap on your retina. You also lack around 4hours of vision every day just to account to eye movement. Placebo effects wouldn't exist. Consciousness wouldn't exist. We could go on and on, but I think you get the point that what everything you perceive is a simulation, not the actual reality.

Please answer if you have real practice and experience in dreams, not if you have only pre-programed thinking, and blind faith (in your god or scientist)

It's impossible to use "real practice and experience" in dreams as a testimony of knowledge. Picture the brain as a television: even if you know all the circuits, pixels, cables, you can't still see the picture it originates. If we apply your logic, how do we know thoughts come from the brain?

Amen Zoth! wink.gif

Lol Zoth...
You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.
You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.
And thoughts don't originate from the brain, like for dreams there is NO EVIDENCE. And like I said, please read all our posts before you make answers. If everyone do like you there is no end to this topic.

Placebo effect don't contradict what I say. For exemple if you have head pain and think that a glass of watter will make you feel better, or even heal you, it will. It is the power of your mind, your beliefs. And your mind and your beliefs are not created by the brain. The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

StephL... you're happy just because he repeated the commun belief about dreams ? You wanted to hear what you already believe ? You see what you want to see? When you're really a truth seeker you don't act like you do.
For exemple there is people in this thread who don't specialy agree with me... but at last they think... Like Sageus for exemple. They don't pretend Knowing something when even in scence there is no certainity.

Did you know that in quantum physics there is an experience that shows that the observer affects the result of the experience ? So even in science you can see only what you are prepared to see. The experience is influenced by the observer. Scientists observing atoms is in fact atoms observing themselves. You can see only what you believe.

PS: for all new people reading this thread please read all answers, respect people who have given their opinion, don't just urge to make answers for your ego. I think I said all I have to say about this, the people who try to understand will understand and those who want to see their own beliefs will ignore all the valuable informations. Thanks

Originally Posted by astralboy

Lol Zoth...
You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.
You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.
And thoughts don't originate from the brain, like for dreams there is NO EVIDENCE. And like I said, please read all our posts before you make answers. If everyone do like you there is no end to this topic.

Placebo effect don't contradict what I say. For exemple if you have head pain and think that a glass of watter will make you feel better, or even heal you, it will. It is the power of your mind, your beliefs. And your mind and your beliefs are not created by the brain. The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

StephL... you're happy just because he repeated the commun belief about dreams ? You wanted to hear what you already believe ? You see what you want to see? When you're really a truth seeker you don't act like you do.
For exemple there is people in this thread who don't specialy agree with me... but at last they think... Like Sageus for exemple. They don't pretend Knowing something when even in scence there is no certainity.

Did you know that in quantum physics there is an experience that shows that the observer affects the result of the experience ? So even in science you can see only what you are prepared to see. The experience is influenced by the observer. Scientists observing atoms is in fact atoms observing themselves. You can see only what you believe.

PS: for all new people reading this thread please read all answers, respect people who have given their opinion, don't just urge to make answers for your ego. I think I said all I have to say about this, the people who try to understand will understand and those who want to see their own beliefs will ignore all the valuable informations. Thanks

I'll repeat what I said earlier.

Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is the systematic organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe that are rational and can be reliably applied.

ipso facto, your peculiar belief that "science" makes mistakes is wrong. If some sceintist says something is impossible, it's the scientists fault not scientific method. The 'belief' in science is in no way endorsed by the scientific method itself.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I'll repeat what I said earlier. "Science doesn't "believe" anything. Science is the systematic organization of knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe that are rational and can be reliably applied."

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously. One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

dutchraptor

What you say is very beautiful in theory... but scientist are humans and they have beliefs and egos. For some of them, they can't believe or imagine something indepedant of the brain, so they will ignore all experiences of so much people and consider this as imagination. But what is sure it is that science is so much ignorant about so much important things. Our science is the result of scientists ... so what you call science can be not true. What they say today can be wrong tomorrow. It look like you consider as something "all knowing" or something like "god"... Never forget that scientists are humans who have beliefs (limited ones) others are more open and there is scientist even who can agree with what I say. But the fact is undeniable... There is no evidence that the mind and dreams originate in the physical brain. When something is undeniable like "The earh is not flat" you can't argue.

Some of scientists are atheist for exemple, and they say that there is no god, and they take it as a fact. But when you are really scientific you can't say "there is no god", or even "there is god". There is no Evidence. It is a belief. Like I said ... So much things are unknown to science, but very few people say it. And when something is unknown or when we don't know... we should be neutral.

Originally Posted by astralboy

dutchraptor

What you say is very beautiful in theory... but scientist are humans and they have beliefs and egos. For some of them, they can't believe or imagine something indepedant of the brain, so they will ignore all experiences of so much people and consider this as imagination. But what is sure it is that science is so much ignorant about so much important things. Our science is the result of scientists ... so what you call science can be not true. What they say today can be wrong tomorrow. It look like you consider as something "all knowing" or something like "god"... Never forget that scientists are humans who have beliefs (limited ones) others are more open and there is scientist even who can agree with what I say. But the fact is undeniable... There is no evidence that the mind and dreams originate in the physical brain. When something is undeniable like "The earh is not flat" you can't argue.

Some of scientists are atheist for exemple, and they say that there is no god, and they take it as a fact. But when you are really scientific you can't say "there is no god", or even "there is god". There is no Evidence. It is a belief. Like I said ... So much things are unknown to science, but very few people say it. And when something is unknown or when we don't know... we should be neutral.

aaaaand you forgot about peer reviewed studies. The scientific community created peer reviewed studies precisely for that reason. If a scientist can't provide strong evidence than what he says isn't accepted. Everything is influenced to an extent by a humans own opinions, but not near as much as you are making it out to be.

Let me give you an example. When we discovered the first evidence of the higgs boson back in 2011, no one was ever told, because the 99.995 percent accuracy they achieved had to be refined, and refined, and then refined again. In the start of 2012 the lhc had logged over 300 trillion proton collisions, and it still took six months before they were sure of the higgs existence. They settled for 1 in 3.5 million chance of error. 8000 scientists worked together to achieve that. The current human brain project, and the human genome project have a combined workforce of somewhere around that number too. If you think some odd biased opinions are going skew the result of projects like these (the ones that produce the massive results) then you are severely delusional.

So where is that study ? Are you saying that science KNOWS what is mind, what is a dream, what is life, what is universe, what is awareness. Or they pretend to know it? Or They know a little bit?
Sorry but I doubt that they KNOW all these things. They may observe effects on the brain (in the case of dreams)... But they can't say nothing more.
I even doubt the evolution theory, the big bang theory, the "everything is meaningless" theory, the "everything is accident, or chance" theory. You seem like an religious, you just accept blindly what the "all knowing science" tells you. You seem that for you science is God, even if there is no evidence. In "scientific" theories there is often a word "Coincidence, Chance or accident".

Like I said science is really cool! But when you make conclusions without enough evidences it is not science.
If science knew all about life, universe, mind... believe me This world would be a much better place.
The day science will KNOW what dreams or mind is this thread will be just... Impossible. Because when you have a real evidence it is impossible to argue against it.

Originally Posted by astralboy

So where is that study ? Are you saying that science KNOWS what is mind, what is a dream, what is life, what is universe, what is awareness. Or they pretend to know it? Or They know a little bit?
Sorry but I doubt that they KNOW all these things. They may observe effects on the brain (in the case of dreams)... But they can't say nothing more.
I even doubt the evolution theory, the big bang theory, the "everything is meaningless" theory, the "everything is accident, or chance" theory. You seem like an religious, you just accept blindly what the "all knowing science" tells you. You seem that for you science is God, even if there is no evidence. In "scientific" theories there is often a word "Coincidence, Chance or accident".

Science provides rationally backed up statistics, it's up to you to choose which statistical inference method you use. Frankly I don't care, fact is science only gave us the evidence, It's up to us how we interpret that. No one asked you to follow Bayesian or sequential statistics etc, most people do, if you want to reject everything that's fine, just don't push it on the us.

Originally Posted by astralboy

Like I said science is really cool! But when you make conclusions without enough evidences it is not science.
If science knew all about life, universe, mind... believe me This world would be a much better place.
The day science will KNOW what dreams or mind is this thread will be just... Impossible. Because when you have a real evidence it is impossible to argue against it.

Here is where it get's great. The hypocrite is finally emerging, an entire thread arguing how "science" deals only in absolutes and you go and say that something is impossible.

StephL. To start with, no harm done I got to give you creeds for your vast research about.. well everything

It's a lot of information going on here right now, so feel it a bit much to take everything in consideration. I just want to make clear that Im a friend of logic as it is, wich in the end will be just logic. And the thing with my idea that there is a scientific logic reasoning and that there is a philosophical logic, was only a explanation to try to define in wich way one could end up, if one shose to use logic in a more restricted way. So my use of logic will simply be everything I learn, and that will not exclude science in any way what so ever.

And a true scientist - following the scientific method - will not categorically oppose a view a priori - he will challenge it and go about the project to falsify a hypothesis.

Yeah, as long as the tought may go in the terms of scientific understanding, so totally free imagination beyound scientific understanding, is not a accepted thing to do here. So then ones logic will not be as free as it could be unforunatly. So a scientist is able to apply imagination in he's theories. So what people will call a encounter with a ghost if they experience it, would immediately be something else "natural" in a true scientists imagination.

If science were bound to their current proofs – it could go home, so to speak!

Thats the way I see science work, they got to follow the rule of physics, and that limits science to the rule of physics. The limit for science is in my opinion and probably for you to, faaar from THE limit. But It's easy to see that science got a limit if you compare science to free imagination.

But - people are people - and show me an old philosopher, esp. a reknown one - for whom in his later age at least did not apply something similar to Clarke´s first law..

I cant do that. Because philosophy got no limits. So that possibility that an old philosopher have used Clarke´s first law.. could be true. But if it is, do I not know. So I would just claim that as possibility.

Even if I have not heard about Arthur C. Clarke before. He's 3 laws, seems very open-minded to me indeed. Good stuff!

What you are describing here - and nicely, I find - is "heuristics".
A word which I find useful to know, out of the load of "philosophical terminology"..

Good research there stephL. I think I will fit in pretty good in that category

I will make a restatement on define the word logic since I did only describe it in the way I use to use it. I would like to define the word logic as: Everything. because of it's limitlessness. So this means that what makes logic to one, could be unlogic to another.

It is not possible for a human (in my world-view ..) to be free of bias - hence I agree with you - and always thought so.

unless you get free from tought, or if you did have acces to all information there is, I would say. But I really do share your opinion in that this would be an overall truth.


I think there might be some backfireing here

Information is never without medium, never pure - it and gets lost.
But it is definitively not "energy" either.

+

rule nr 1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

From the Skeptoid's text:

"in Most of these paranormal phenomena rely on"

This might look like a legit when you read a whole text, but if you try to be legit/open-minded. This is things that matters alot in my opinion. Because if you "MOST of these la la laa.." then it means that you dont take all your disapproval in consideration. If you dont find any evidence at ALL, then youre most likely to claim that "ALL of these paranormal phenomena rely on.. etc etc" according on my experience. So when you say "most of these paranormal phenomena rely on" then it's very likely that youre not to shore on what you think you know. So in my book, this seems like a bias aproach, and that's not entierly legit, even if there is mostly, many really good advices in there.

And to explain my self in my view of the claim to be open-minded, my aproach of paranormal things is this kind of aproach that's described in Skeptoid's text. So I dont see anything wrong with the overall aproach he's/she's refering to. But my analys of this skeptoid's text make my red-flags go off, because of that BIG mistake in my opinion. Another of my view of paranormal things, is that if I took a guess in how many fake/not very likely claims there is in this paranormal occurrences that I have get my hands on. Then I would probably say that something like 90% of all that I seen, is fake/not very likely to be true. Wich means that 10% is stuff that I've not being able to debunk in a sound sceptic aproach.

Nowhere did Einstein discuss hovering glowing clouds, or fields of mystical power generated by human spirits.

My question to that would spontanesly be. Did he ever had the chance to see a impossible paranormal occurens then?? I would not been here discussing this paranormal things if I never had the chance to stumble on som very twisted paranormal events either!

Well - I find the term philosophical misapplied here.
The example - and yeah - sorry for being bitchy.. - would for me rather fall into the category psychology - and psychology on a level, which is very close in motivational framework, with which evolution has also equipped our animal-friends - just like us.
So - it really rather belongs in the realm of neurobiology based motivational/behavioural explanations.
I thought, it would not really get at, what you are trying to get at.

No your not bitchy at all, I like that there is a good "fight" in discussions, because that's what makes one think. So I cant claim that this is the best possible example there is But If you do find this example I come up with, not to good. Then one either understood the example, or one might not get it at all. So I dont know in what case you might claim youreself to be in. The only way for me to know that you got the idea in this example. Is that you improve the example in such a way that it makes more sense to you, then it is right now.

What exactly - not nastily asked - I am really unsure, what statement of his you refer to?
Could you please give me the whole statement together, how you want it understood?
I do not understand it like this.

Yeah sorry, I didn't explain enough what Astralboy point really was. But the thing his refered to, was that one's ego is the one who makes us in to the personalitys we are, and the ego also protect us, but at the same time, the ego mess things up alot. And one's ego is what causing pshycological pain in the first place. So with no ego, we would "wake up from the dream", and see the world as it really is. So when the ego has died, there is what we call enlightenment instead.

There is so much people who have "experience out of body" and see later that what they saw was real.*

Who said that?

The above quote might grasp, why on a forum like ours this topic sort of has to arise and with an earnestness, too.

We really should get at such study material, as dutchraptor was mentioning earlier - that little evidence, which has not been proven bogus, irrelevantly of intentional or just in enthusiasm, which he referred to.

Sooner or later I will - but maybe really later - does not seem an easy search-project - not even one I would enjoy..
Also later maybe the other post, not the "leisure" now..

But if there really were so many reports of this, then surely I would by now have come across one of them?
NOT "a friend of mine told me, or just your experience - "you" (whoever) can tell us anything, and we do not know, if you say the truth or not.
It must be a study with witnesses, who are completely neutral and premises so, that they were without ambiguity.
I know of several such endeavours - where only in repetition there was uncovered a fraud and "other stuff".
The truth in that sense, if you really can attain information, which would not been accessible in any other physical way.

That is what the quote is about, isn´t it?


*I got it from a quote in a post-draft next tab over - don´t know now, who that refers to - I find it might be something really fitting for discussing this topic

Originally Posted by StephL

But if there really were so many reports of this, then surely I would by now have come across one of them?

Did you ever hear of the USA, CIA's "Remote Viewing" program?

Abstract:
"In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

Excerpt:
"Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood." H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

Full report here: http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pa...itiatedRV.html

You should read all posts and think better. Not just give your beliefs and what you have readed.

Your fallacies keep pilling up...the fact that I've read all the posts or not doesn't eliminate the incongruities of your reasoning, thus my line of thought may still be completely valid. Actually, many of this conversation has been dragged of course with your attempts to add complexity to simple matters.

You should KNOW that Science don't know for sure! They have theory that's all. Even in science there is more opinions. Like I said and repeated ther is NO EVIDENCE to make conclusions. EVEN SCIENCE IS NOT ALL KNOWING. They did mistakes and will continue to do it...

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.

Of course there is....Besides, it's already established how memories are stored: they are essentially loads of clusters of neurons scattered throughout the brain, which explains why the removal of huge chunks of brain tissue can still leave many memories intact. Long-term potentiation is another component that adds up to the evidence.

Besides, you (without realizing) contradict yourself: if you say the brain is a receptor, then how come memories are not stored in the brain? So you see an image of a car, it goes out of your brain to someplace else, then when you remind yourself of the car, it's because the memory went back in? That makes zero sense.

The brain interprets that and create all the effect FOR THE BODY. But thoughts (you) are the director. The brain and body follow the thought.
READ ALL since the first post to the last. Thanks

And your thoughts are able to be formed because.....oh wait, because you have a brain. I admit that philosophy isn't dead, but philosophy that doesn't consider the advances in neuroscience is a useless philosophy. If thoughts are directed by you and not your brain, how come biomedical treatment is effective against mental illness? Why can't you "think yourself out" of the problem? How come PTSD is related to memory processing issues if the memories are not in the brain? You'd be surprised how unconscious processing can reveal that a lot of our actions and thoughts are not decided by us.

respect people who have given their opinion

I do respect your opinion. I just think it has numerous flaws, and that in this discussion you've proven for several times that you're not seeking the truth, you're seeking comfort.

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

But from which world do dreams come? Both, maybe?

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

But from which world do dreams come? Both, maybe?

"Both" sounds right, but I'm going to have to think that question over... maybe sleep on it.

N.

First of all - there is a great thread on science of lucid dreaming: http://www.dreamviews.com/lucid-drea...ml#post2057088

Could well be, you find it interesting, all and anybody - and there is a nice little video of how the brain goes about some interesting things as well.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Did you ever hear of the USA, CIA's "Remote Viewing" program?

Abstract:
"In July 1995 the CIA declassified, and approved for release, documents revealing its sponsorship in the 1970s of a program at Stanford Research Institute in Menlo Park, CA, to determine whether such phenomena as remote viewing "might have any utility for intelligence collection" [1]. Thus began disclosure to the public of a two-decade-plus involvement of the intelligence community in the investigation of so-called parapsychological or psi phenomena. Presented here by the program's Founder and first Director (1972 - 1985) is the early history of the program, including discussion of some of the first, now declassified, results that drove early interest.

Excerpt:
"Despite the ambiguities inherent in the type of exploration covered in these programs, the integrated results appear to provide unequivocal evidence of a human capacity to access events remote in space and time, however falteringly, by some cognitive process not yet understood."[/B] H. E. Puthoff, Ph.D. Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin

Full report here: CIA-Initiated RV Program at SRI

Thank you Nailler - you deliver the goods, okaay.
smile.gif

Reads more interestingly than I had expected - these would be the kind of sources, to dig into.
But there should be openly accessible studies - shouldn´t there?


But the above statement of your excerpt says exactly nothing, unfortunately - "ambiguities? That is not what we asked for!
And "appear to provide" - why not simply "provide"?
Because there is no definite, positive "evidence". Otherwise it would be "provided" - don´t you think?

Unfortunately - for us on here this is worthless anyway and in the first place - since we are not allowed true access to the information:

Since details concerning the site's mission in general, and evaluation of the remote viewing test in particular, remain highly classified to this day, all that can be said is that interest in the client community was heightened considerably following this exercise.

I mean CIA - don´t know, what I should think - maybe that is propaganda to "leak" something like this themselves.
Wouldn´t you want the world to believe America has PSI super-soldiers and agents?
It could even be considered a duty for some people to try this trick with doing as if the CIA could do, and prove remote-viewing, and what not else.
But of course that is TOP-SECRET

Top Secret is not Evidence. Full stop.

This should suffice to not let the above material pass our scepticism - at least it can´t get past mine - but good start.



Super post, Zoth - again!
smile.gif

Originally Posted by astralboy

Classic dreams may come from memory, but even the memory is not in the brain, there is NO EVIDENCE for that. Of course you see the parts in the brain that interpet memory, but it is not an evidence that it is inside it.

Originally Posted by Zoth

Besides, you (without realizing) contradict yourself: if you say the brain is a receptor, then how come memories are not stored in the brain? So you see an image of a car, it goes out of your brain to someplace else, then when you remind yourself of the car, it's because the memory went back in? (from only being in the spirit going back into the brain)
That makes zero sense.

Indeed - please clarify - where are memories - and why are they not in the brain, astralboy?


If I were a dualist now, I would say - the information does go from the brain to the spirit, but is also stored in the brain, and can vice versa be accessed.

But you, astralboy see it differently - see above.
Why info to brain to spirit and back to brain - if the brain has the capacity, which it does - it has it in between steps - why not have the info stay in the brain - makes sense - like it does evidently come out of you over the brain later again, or not?

Why does the spirit take the memory out of the brain, so that it is no longer in the brain, like you pose, astralboy?
And why does the spirit have to put the information back into the brain again, before further proceedings with that information can take place?

Throwing about the "I" and the "Ego" and "Spirit" etc. is not very informative.

How I really see this is - for a start - the eyes are an actual part of the brain - so the brain acts as a direct receptor for light, and the brain is also an actor upon itself, if you will.

What we talk about, I think, is an executive function of the brain - a more and more sophisticated self-reflective superstructure built over evolution on the basis of learning and psychology of animals.
The Meta-Consciousness tested with the help of LDers - see link at the top of this post.

The brain projects a point of personal view onto the inner canvas.
'We' are concerted wave phenomena in time and neuronal matter.
If you wanted to have it sound more nice ..


Brain-matter - best stuff around for as far out as we know!!
Thumbs2.gif

Originally Posted by Zoth

..You'd be surprised how unconscious processing can reveal that a lot of our actions and thoughts are not decided by us.

Oh yes - and Wolf Singer is a great source for such things.
He has done amazing research and review-work in Germany - on consciousness.

Originally Posted by Zoth

I do respect your opinion. I just think it has numerous flaws, and that in this discussion you've proven for several times that you're not seeking the truth, you're seeking comfort.

I fully agree with you.

Originally Posted by Nailler

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously. One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

Scientists are people, and indeed - the community had some bumpy paradigm-shifts in scientific history - I have brought the very same statement about them being "people" before and given Clarke´s 3 laws - once more:
#1 "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

For various reasons - different stories - but that there are scientists who are short-sighted with their age and personality is not an argument against the scientific method.

And - I thought there goes a funny end-note - but - I am afraid, we will not only from Astralboy but from you as well hear of Creationism and I loathe this topic sometimes - I promise I will behave, though ..
Also the denial of man made climate change - I will have to make some use of Sceptoid.com again I feel..
But maybe on another thread - and not this one, please?

Originally Posted by Sageous

Originally Posted by Nailler

True enough, but scientists do believe things, and being human beings, they have an endless need to be right. On more than a few historical occasions the "scientific community" has en masse suffered from hysterical blindness to facts that rendered their beliefs and pet theories null and void. For example, doctors and scientists who would "rather err with Galen than proclaim the truth with Harvey." And more recently the "man-caused global warming" debacle.

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously. One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

Some deny the existence of the physical world, claiming all is spirit. Others deny the existence of the spiritual world, claiming if something can't be measured it doesn't exist. I believe in both those worlds. And further I believe when and where those two very different worlds meet, anything is possible.

Tune in next week when my sermon will be; "Jelly Fish and Stop Watches, Their Common Origin"

N.

^^ That is an excellent point, period.

But from which world do dreams come? Both, maybe?

Please tell me, which point do you refer to Sageous?
smile.gif


Edit: And because it is simply great:




And Edit: DreamyBear - I will answer you a bit later..smile.gif

Originally Posted by StephL

I am afraid, we will not only from Astralboy but from you as well hear of Creationism and I loathe this topic sometimes - I promise I will behave, though ..Also the denial of man made climate change...

Not from me. Arguing over deeply held religious beliefs such as creationism and anthropogenic climate change is a waste of time.

N.

This is likely a bit late, but:

Originally Posted by StephL

Please tell me, which point do you refer to Sageous?

The whole post, basically, but I guess this paragraph best sums up the point:

I would argue that there are two vastly different worlds that we all live in simultaneously. One is the world of science, where things can be measured and outcomes uniformly predicted. The other is the world of the mind and spirit. In that world the dew on the rose in the morning sun is more than simple h2o, and there exists all manner of clever things that cannot be touched by human hands.

That I find pleasant, Nailler!
Cheers for that - however you mean it from the point of view you have on these topics - I am grateful not to be dragged into these two just now and here!
smile.gif

I was trying to make an example back in this thread, and It was brobably not a easy one. But I got a new one now that will be a easier one.

Example: If there was a person who lived at a planet all by him self, without any other living thing ever existed on that planet what so ever. If that person dont have the feeling that he got someone there, and that he not have the feeling of being alone. Then what would he be? Would he be alone any ways. Or would he be lonley and not lonley in the same time?

(A.)If you think that he would be more lonley any way, then why do you think so?

(B.)If you think that he's not lonley any ways, then why do you think so?

(C.)And if you think he would be lonley and not lonley in the same time. Wich of those two answers will he be most likley to be then?

(D.)And if he would be considerate most likely to be more of one answear than the other one. Then what makes that statment more likley to be the truth, if both answers could occur at the same time?

This is for everyone who dare to answer, I already got my opinion in this one. But if your not open-minded enough. Then I think this example will show your failure to not be enough open-minded. So let's test this out every one!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I was trying to make an example back in this thread, and It was brobably not a easy one. But I got a new one now that will be a easier one.

Example: If there was a person who lived at a planet all by him self, without any other living thing ever existed on that planet what so ever. If that person dont have the feeling that he got someone there, and that he not have the feeling of being alone. Then what would he be? Would he be alone any ways. Or would he be lonley and not lonley in the same time?

(A.)If you think that he would be more lonley any way, then why do you think so?

(B.)If you think that he's not lonley any ways, then why do you think so?

(C.)And if you think he would be lonley and not lonley in the same time. Wich of those two answers will he be most likley to be then?

(D.)And if he would be considerate most likely to be more of one answear than the other one. Then what makes that statment more likley to be the truth, if both answers could occur at the same time?

This is for everyone who dare to answer, I already got my opinion in this one. But if your not open-minded enough. Then I think this example will show your failure to not be enough open-minded. So let's test this out every one!

The answer is B, since you specified that he is not lonely. Being alone does not necessarily mean that you are lonely. And in the context of the situation it is also likely that he wouldn't be lonely since he lived his life on his own, so the concept would be foreign to him.

lonely = sad because one has no friends or company
alone = having no one else present

One does not (necessarily) lead to the other.

Dutchraptor, I first tought you got It. And that in a way I actually didn't take in consideration. But according to the meaning of the word lonely, after I looked it up. Your answer unforunatly didn't debunk my example after all.

-causing or resulting from the state of being alone a lonely existence-

-isolated, unfrequented, or desolate-

-without companions; solitary-

Both sad and isolated, etc etc. Is then something to take in consideration. Wich make this example even more complex now. So who is more right or wrong in wich answer that should be the true one then? This is also an aspect to consciderate in this question. Good try though, Dutchraptor!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Dutchraptor, I first tought you got It. And that in a way I actually didn't take in consideration. But according to the meaning of the word lonely, after I looked it up. Your answer unforunatly didn't debunk my example after all.
Both sad and isolated, etc etc. Is then something to take in consideration. Wich make this example even more complex now. So who is more right or wrong in wich answer that should be the true one then? This is also an aspect to consciderate in this question. Good try though, Dutchraptor!

Thanks but you're misunderstanding the situation.
Being alone is a physical property. Being lonely is a state of mind. One can be lonely whether or not there are people around him, one can only be alone when there is no other person present.
The proper definition of lonely refers purely to the state of mind of a person.

The proper definition of lonely refers purely to the state of mind of a person.

Yeah but lonely seems to have more definition to it then just a state of mind. Here is an example I found "being without company" Does that mean that it got to be a sad moment or not a sad moment? I would say that it got two definitions. So both definition will be equaly true depending on, in wich way you want to see it from. I think you have to look up the word lonley a bit better.