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

**StephL** · 06-10-2014 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Journeyman

go ahead and have the last word .

I will.
You exasperate me and I couldn't resist expressing it.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

I am a Climate Change 'Denier' .

That's a massive red flag in my view. And I admit it made me angry, because I deem this view as right-out dangerous.
But go ahead - on which grounds do you deny it?
Better yet - open a thread in Science and Mathematics, where it belongs.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

I do not subscribe to the theory of Relativity .

You can subscribe to whatever you want of course - but you can't expect to be taken seriously then.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Theories , not proven .

Well done. Scientific theories are the closest we will and can ever get to finding "the truth". It really irks me to have to read this over and over and in always the same cranky contexts - feeling the need to differentiate between theory in common tongue and in the context of science for the thousandth time. I guess, you are well aware of the difference - which makes it worse. You brought that picture upon yourself - I'm sick of countering this "argument".

So you set me off and I reacted rashly - but I can't quite see, where I'm guilty of logical fallacies?

Originally Posted by Journeyman

That is your religio-scientific brain hard at work , the best you can come up with

Okay I'll bite, can't seem to resist - so lets get down to it.
This below took me considerable time - and I don't quite care about how pretty it looks, or if it repeats itself or cites the best possible text passages or whatnot - for those, who wish to get an impression, if Dr. Persinger's work is to be taken on face value or not - it should suffice.
And that's only about the much less controversial topic - his main work, the "god helmet".
In short - despite massive media interest and hype - the results have not been replicable - not in several attempts and not even with his own cooperation. Main problem - not double-blinded - the experimenters knew, which was stimulation and which was sham, in the minority of experiments, where blinding was done at all. With proper blinding the effect only correlated to measures of suggestibility in the subjects. What is also noteworthy, is that the conditions, under which the stimulation took place, were analogous to the "Ganzfeld" setting - something that is indeed shown to be conductive to such experiences already.

Dr. Persinger has elicited considerable delight among atheists, and many, who would agree to belong under the label of "sceptics", because he seemed to show, that religious experiences are nothing more than electrical phenomena in the temporal lobes, which he supposedly was able to produce with his famous helmet.

Dr. Michael Shermer is a renowned sceptic of the supernatural, author of "The Believing Brain" - and he has referred to Persinger's work on that helmet as a source. This led to some scepticism towards Shermer in turn - and the following passage comes from that section of his homepage.

Originally Posted by John Connor

I have had OBEs before and I assure everyone, after listening to the test subjects of the God-helmet that none of them had an OBE. During an OBE one does not simply sense presences or have feelings of waves and in no way does one have to try and interpret what is happening. During an OBE there are consistent processes that occur sequentially.
I object to scientists using unscientific and generalized statements that are universal qualifiers such as everyone named Bernard is bald. Dr. Persinger statements,”I have duplicated every aspect of god or paranormal experience.” takes credit for recreating every and all experiences! “All experiences are in the brain.”
Maybe some phenomenon can be chalked up to magnetic field exposure however the vast majority may not be.
Sometimes similar experiences are not the same but are actually many different happenings and can be explained by multiple and different reasons/conclusions. I assure you there are many things going on that in the years to come will be differentiated instead of lumped in all together as being the same experience.

Now one could view this as a minor concern - generalisations and mislabelling.
But check this out:

A group of Swedish researchers has now repeated the work, but they say their study involves one crucial difference. They ensured that neither the participants nor the experimenters interacting with them had any idea who was being exposed to the magnetic fields, a 'double-blind' protocol.

Without such a safeguard, "people in the experimental group who are highly suggestible would pick up on cues from the experimenter and they would be more likely to have these types of experiences," says Pehr Granqvist of Uppsala University, who led the research team.

Beyond the double-blind aspect, Granqvist says the nuts and bolts of the experiment mirrored those conducted in the past. He and his colleagues tested 43 undergraduate students by exposing them to magnetic fields that ranged from 3 to 7 microtesla and were aimed just above and in front of the ears, to target the temporal lobes.

They also tested a control group of 46 volunteers who wore the helmet but were not exposed to the magnetic field. The volunteers were then asked to complete questionnaires about what they experienced during each session.

In contrast to the results from Persinger and others, the team found that the magnetism had no discernable effects. Two out of the three participants in the Swedish study that reported strong spiritual experiences during the study belonged to the control group, as did 11 out of the 22 who reported subtle experiences.

Granqvist acknowledges that this seems to be quite a high level of spiritual experiences overall, but says that it matches the level that Persinger saw in his control groups.

The researchers say they do not know what neurological mechanism could be generating the experiences. However, using personality tests they did find that people with an orientation toward unorthodox spirituality were more likely to feel a supernatural presence, as were those who were, in general, more suggestible.

From here: Electrical brainstorms busted as source of ghosts : Nature News

Meanwhile there is not only the one Swedish study, which debunked the experiment, but several, including one done with the original protocols of Persinger's and with his cooperation - and nobody was ever able to replicate it. Despite huge public interest.

One more a bit longer article from here: http://www.skepdic.com/godhelmet.html

...One might think that if such low-level magnetic fields could stimulate the prefontal lobes and cause "spiritual" experiences, there would be numerous reports every day of women and men in ecstasy from accidental exposure to a magnetic pulse. Anyway, Persinger has been at this for fifteen years and I've seen several reports that he claims that 80% of those who put on the god helmet have weird experiences. (Dr. Sarah Strand made this claim in a talk at SkeptiCal 2012. There are also several links on the internet, including the Wikipedia article on the god helmet, that link to an interview on the BBC, apparently with Richard Dawkins, who experienced nothing, where the 80% claim is made.) It may be true that 80% of those who go through his god helmet routine--which I will describe below--have weird experiences that some consider "mystical," "spiritual," or "paranormal." The problem is, I don't think he has very good evidence that these weird experiences are caused by magnetic pulses from his god helmet.

Jack Hitt, in a 1999 article for Wired, provides a detailed description of the Persinger process he went through. (Richard Dawkins also describes the process.) When Hitt arrives at the lab, he's met by a graduate student who asks him "a range of true-or-false statements from an old version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, a test designed to ferret out any nuttiness that might disqualify me from serving as a study subject." After he's been cleared as a "normie," Hitt is escorted into a "chamber," which he describes as an old sound-experiment booth. The tiny room doesn't appear to have been redecorated since it was built in the early '70s. The frayed spaghettis of a brown-and-white shag carpet, along with huge, wall-mounted speakers covered in glittery black nylon, surround a spent brown recliner upholstered in the prickly polymers of that time. The chair, frankly, is repellent. Hundreds of subjects have settled into its itchy embrace, and its brown contours are spotted with dollops of electrode-conducting cream, dried like toothpaste, giving the seat the look of a favored seagulls' haunt.

Persinger arrives and chats Hitt up for a bit while the helmet is fitted to his head. Hitt asks if anybody's ever freaked out in the chair and Persinger describes an "adverse experience" somebody had who thought the room was hexed. I guess the nuttiness test isn't foolproof. From other things Persinger says it is apparent that the subject is hooked up to an electrocardiograph and an electroencephalograph. Here is where the research gets sloppy, in my opinion. The subject knows what Persinger thinks he's doing. He knows what to expect and Persinger primes him to experience what he expects him to experience.

Technically speaking, what's about to happen is simple. Using his fixed wavelength patterns of electromagnetic fields, Persinger aims to inspire a feeling of a sensed presence - he claims he can also zap you with euphoria, anxiety, fear, even sexual stirring. Each of these electromagnetic patterns is represented by columns of numbers - thousands of them, ranging from 0 to 255 - that denote the increments of output for the computer generating the EM bursts.

Some of the bursts - which Persinger more precisely calls "a series of complex repetitive patterns whose frequency is modified variably over time" - have generated their intended effects with great regularity, the way aspirin causes pain relief. Persinger has started naming them and is creating a sort of EM pharmacological dictionary. The pattern that stimulates a sensed presence is called the Thomas Pulse, named for Persinger's colleague Alex Thomas, who developed it. There's another one called Burst X, which reproduces what Persinger describes as a sensation of "relaxation and pleasantness."

A new one, the Linda Genetic Pulse, is named for my psychometrist, Linda St-Pierre. Persinger says St-Pierre is conducting a massive study on rats to determine the ways in which lengthy exposures to particular electromagnetic pulses can "affect gene expression."

Then Persinger leaves, having primed his subject for a head trip, and shuts the door. The subject is left behind with halved ping pong balls covering his eyes, in total darkness and silence. Hitt remains in this makeshift deprivation chamber for 35 minutes. He has a lapel mic, which he can use should he feel the need to be extricated from the chamber before his time is up.

What has Persinger done to establish that any subjective experience reported by his subjects was caused by the magnetic pulses rather than the sensory deprivation along with the suggestions he's primed his subjects with? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Persinger, however, claims that some of his tests were double-blinded and that the subjects didn't know what to expect. Furthermore, he says, sometimes he would turn the magnetic pulses on and off and not tell the subject when he would do so.

Adding to my skepticism about Persinger's interpretation of his work is the fact that he is the only one who has validated it. Nobody has replicated anything like it. One attempt to replicate was made, apparently with Persinger's approval of the protocols to be used, but the attempt failed to replicate and Persinger has criticized the failure as due to not exposing the subjects to magnetic fields for a long enough time to produce an effect. Persinger's objection seems absurd given that many subjects in both the control and experimental groups in the attempted replication reported strong or subtle effects.

BioEd Online reports on the scientific study that failed to replicate Persinger's claims:

A group of Swedish researchers has now repeated the work, but they say their study involves one crucial difference. They ensured that neither the participants nor the experimenters interacting with them had any idea who was being exposed to the magnetic fields, a 'double-blind' protocol. Without such a safeguard, "people in the experimental group who are highly suggestible would pick up on cues from the experimenter and they would be more likely to have these types of experiences," says Pehr Granqvist of Uppsala University, who led the research team.

Beyond the double-blind aspect, Granqvist says the nuts and bolts of the experiment mirrored those conducted in the past. He and his colleagues tested 43 undergraduate students by exposing them to magnetic fields that ranged from 3 to 7 microtesla and were aimed just above and in front of the ears, to target the temporal lobes.

They also tested a control group of 46 volunteers who wore the helmet but were not exposed to the magnetic field. The volunteers were then asked to complete questionnaires about what they experienced during each session. The researchers report their results online in Neuroscience Letters.

In contrast to the results from Persinger and others, the team found that the magnetism had no discernible effects. Two out of the three participants in the Swedish study that reported strong spiritual experiences during the study belonged to the control group, as did 11 out of the 22 who reported subtle experiences.

Granqvist acknowledges that this seems to be quite a high level of spiritual experiences overall, but says that it matches the level that Persinger saw in his control groups.

The researchers say they do not know what neurological mechanism could be generating the experiences. However, using personality tests they did find that people with an orientation toward unorthodox spirituality were more likely to feel a supernatural presence, as were those who were, in general, more suggestible.

It seems obvious that further research needs to be done before we attribute the results in Persinger's lab to magnetic pulses. It may well be the case that changes in the brain lead people to have what they describe as "mystical" experiences. These changes may be due to magnetic or electrical pulses, desires, thoughts, suggestions, or a host of other factors, including drugs and neurochemicals.

The god helmet, however, won't deserve its name until much more substantial evidence is provided by researchers other than Michael Persinger, who is not really the most unbiased person in the room.

If the reader is wondering why Persinger would think stimulating the temporal lobes would induce a "spiritual" experience, it is probably because there have been many reports of those with temporal lobe epilepsy experiencing such things as "oneness with everything."

The main problem with Persinger's work, looks to be, that the studies were not properly double-blinded. Besides the currents being only minimal and way, way lower than anything shown to have an effect with the usual transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) - and the Ganzfeld/isolation setting having to be taken into account.
Persinger has put forth a supposed debunking of the debunkers, on an anonymous looking website, not in a scientific journal - and the following is a quite telling excerpt - and if for the length of it only - that's all there is on the double-blinding problem:

Granqvist (et al.) claimed that the reason why Persinger's results differed from their own was that Persinger's experiments weren't double-blind. In contrast to the claim made by Granqvist, Persinger uses double-blind protocols. Here are a few references for papers where they were not only followed, but described in the papers (link1| link2 | link3). For comparison, Persinger uses a "Sham Field", meaning that the wires connected to the Helmet were disconnected for control subjects.

In Persinger's experiments " ... the subjects were not aware of their experimental conditions and experimenters were not familiar with the hypotheses being tested or both were not aware of the experimental condition. Subjects were randomly or serially allocated to conditions. The person generating the hypothesis never had direct contact with the subjects."

From here: The God Helmet - Debate between Persinger and a Swedish researcher.

I went to the trouble of reproducing the links - to remind you - this webpage is meant as a valid debunking the debunkers - and following the three links leads to abstracts only. Why does he not cite his passages directly, where he describes the actual double-blinding? The first two abstracts say nothing about any blinding - and the third one mentions, that they used a sham-simulation. That makes the study blinded, not double blinded.
Double blinded would mean, that the experimenter didn't know if it was sham or not - note how he does not say that.
What he says is that the experimenters were not familiar with the hypotheses. I gather they were aware, whether stimulation was applied or sham - why not write that out, when it is that what it's all about? And what is it supposed to mean anyway? Of course these scientists knew, what they were researching there - it's ridiculous to claim otherwise.
"Familiar" - does that mean, they didn't know the exact wording of the hypothesis or what?

Again - what should be written there in order to make his refutation of the follow-up studies credible would be, that the experimenters didn't know what was sham, and what was not. That would be double-blinded - not some sort of familiarity with the hypotheses.
And while the lack of double-blinding is the main criticism of his work - he devotes only the above small passage on debunking the debunkers here.

Once more from the Shermer page:

Yes, the debunkers’ debunking has been debunked, and the results are published where? An anonymous looking website. Hmm.
The Granqvist et al replication may not have been perfect (although Persinger et al’s criticisms of it frankly ring rather hollow), but we now have converging evidence from several independent groups (Granqvist et al 2005, French et al 2009, Gendle & McGrath 2012) that the paranormal-like effects claimed to be produced by magnetic fields have not proved reproducable.
Of course, Persinger and colleagues have contested these studies too, but I challenge you to find a defense of Persinger (or a criticism of his detractors) not written by himself or a collaborator. Or an anonymous internet troll.

Okay - here a list of the studies, which came up dry, trying to replicate his god-helmet and related general refutations:

^Granqvist, P; Fredrikson, M; Unge, P; Hagenfeldt, A; Valind, S; Larhammar, D; Larsson, M (2005). "Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak complex magnetic fields". Neuroscience Letters 379 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2004.10.057. PMID 15849873. Lay summary – BioEd Online (December 9, 2004).

^Larsson, M., Larhammarb, D., Fredrikson, M., and Granqvist, P. (2005), "Reply to M.A. Persinger and S. A. Koren's response to Granqvist et al. "Sensed presence and mystical experiences are predicted by suggestibility, not by the application of transcranial weak magnetic fields"", Neuroscience Letters 380 (3): 348–350, doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2005.03.059

^French, CC., Haque, U., Bunton-Stasyshyn, R., Davis, R. (2009), "The "Haunt" project: An attempt to build a "haunted" room by manipulating complex electromagnetic fields and infrasound", Cortex 45 (5): 619–629, doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2007.10.011, PMID 18635163

^Gendle, MH & McGrath, MG (2012). "Can the 8-coil shakti alter subjective emotional experience? A randomized, placebo-controlled study.". Perceptual and Motor Skills 114 (1): 217–235. doi:10.2466/02.24.pms.114.1.217-235.

^Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist 25 (7): 520–523. "the magnetic fields generated by the God helmet are far too weak to penetrate the cranium and influence neurons within. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) uses field strengths of around 1.5 tesla in order to induce currents strong enough to depolarise neurons through the skull and cause them to fire. Persinger’s apparatus, on the other hand has a strength ... 5000 times weaker than a typical fridge magnet. Granqvist argues that there is simply no way that this apparatus is having any meaningful effect on the brain, and I’m inclined to agree."

^Craig Aaen-Stockdale (2012). "Neuroscience for the Soul". The Psychologist 25 (7): 520–523. "Persinger’s theory is based on the literature on religiosity in temporal lobe epileptics ... a literature that I argue above is both flawed and outdated."

So. I am aware that the above might not be enough to throw the god-helmet thing out of the window once and for all time - but it should be enough to raise considerable doubts as to the validity of his work.
And that was the stuff that was greeted with initial enthusiasm by the sceptics - supposedly showing that supernatural seeming experiences were "all just in the brain".
Probably worse with his telepathy and remote viewing stuff.
So does what I wrote here do anything to your acceptance of his work, Journeyman?
Or was it indeed in vain?
Whatever - my fault for biting, I guess...

Oh - one more thing - do you happen to be a young earth creationist as well? Just a shot in the dark, since I mentioned this thread in the Religion and Spirituality subforum a couple of days back - and now you unearthed it?

**Highlander** · 06-10-2014 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by StephL

Attachment 7199

Dr Jones?

Attachment 7200

Gordon Banks defied gravity in the 1970 World Cup Finals in Mexico.

**Journeyman** · 06-11-2014 04:08 AM

It is ironic to observe on a forum about something as ephemeral as dreaming , argument about the supposed hard facts of science with not a little hostility .
The brain is active in dreaming , but what causes dreaming , like what causes consciousness , is simply not possible to determine by scientific method , full stop .Therefore , more study is needed , and in the meantime , all we have is conjecture .

As Al Gore et al attempt to use it now , Stalin and Hitler used science and scientists to declare scientific basis for eugenics and mass murder . That is a fact .
The idea that science is pure and not used for political ends , incorruptible ......anyone who has such an idea is surely myopic or has read no history .
What is Agenda 21 , but the biggest eugenics program in history , based on supposed science . Not millions , billions of people , are in the cross-hairs .
Psychoanalysis Freud admitted was a con , what was it he said ? " I am bringing a plague to America " - courtesy of the Frankfurt School and served with Bernays sauce . Since then , in the MKUltra experiments admitted to in Congress and by the Canadian government , the list of psychiatrists involved with military MKUltra is so numerous that one may assume it is completely systemic .
The origin of the word Pharmacy came from the Greek Pharmakos , Pharmakon ; sorcery , in which the offending devil was found , named and expelled , or offending person was found , named , and expelled or killed . In Allopathic medicine today the offending disease is found , named , and expelled or killed .

What is light , what is electricity , what is the sun ........we do not know these basic things , not at all . Science should be open to discovery , not proclaiming that E=MC2 is inviolable law of the universe .
Cern .....faster than C , impossible
Longitudinal Dielectric , impossible
Urzeit Code , impossible
( Urzeit code , Guido Ebner of CIBA pharmaceuticals , genetic reversion in static electric field )

**StephL** · 06-11-2014 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Journeyman

It is ironic to observe on a forum about something as ephemeral as dreaming , argument about the supposed hard facts of science with not a little hostility .
The brain is active in dreaming , but what causes dreaming , like what causes consciousness , is simply not possible to determine by scientific method , full stop .Therefore , more study is needed , and in the meantime , all we have is conjecture .

As Al Gore et al attempt to use it now , Stalin and Hitler used science and scientists to declare scientific basis for eugenics and mass murder . That is a fact .
The idea that science is pure and not used for political ends , incorruptible ......anyone who has such an idea is surely myopic or has read no history .
What is Agenda 21 , but the biggest eugenics program in history , based on supposed science . Not millions , billions of people , are in the cross-hairs .
Psychoanalysis Freud admitted was a con , what was it he said ? " I am bringing a plague to America " - courtesy of the Frankfurt School and served with Bernays sauce . Since then , in the MKUltra experiments admitted to in Congress and by the Canadian government , the list of psychiatrists involved with military MKUltra is so numerous that one may assume it is completely systemic .
The origin of the word Pharmacy came from the Greek Pharmakos , Pharmakon ; sorcery , in which the offending devil was found , named and expelled , or offending person was found , named , and expelled or killed . In Allopathic medicine today the offending disease is found , named , and expelled or killed .

What is light , what is electricity , what is the sun ........we do not know these basic things , not at all . Science should be open to discovery , not proclaiming that E=MC2 is inviolable law of the universe .
Cern .....faster than C , impossible
Longitudinal Dielectric , impossible
Urzeit Code , impossible
( Urzeit code , Guido Ebner of CIBA pharmaceuticals , genetic reversion in static electric field )

Aaha.
So you got nothing to say whatsoever when called out?
Not even: but Persinger is right anyway. Not: okay, so he might not be as respectable, as I thought he was - nothing.
Instead you throw in this ridiculous conglomerate - nope - I won't bite any more.
You proved my point - it is not worth discussing anything with you - no matter how much time and effort one invests, and how many arguments one presents - you will just dodge and duck and change the topic.
I knew this right after that post where you first brought up your climate change denialism and Einstein.
I just feared this might be less obvious to whoever reads this thread.
Job done.
And I even learned something - I wasn't sure, what to think of Persinger myself before researching the topic.

**Journeyman** · 06-11-2014 02:30 PM

Stephl
The last post I made was not directed , addressed to , or intended for you .
Since you want to troll , nothing will stop you . But please go troll somewhere else . I have no more troll food for you .

**StephL** · 06-11-2014 02:51 PM

So my post on Persinger is what you call trolling? That's why you didn't answer it?
Hopeless...

I'll tell you something - some 20 years ago, I had a phase of "I want to believe" myself.
Could have been me, trying to argue the case, that there is not enough evidence to be reasonably sure, that dreams are indeed produced in the brain. I used to believe in astral projection for a while for example, and I learned LDing anew from Castaneda after having done it as a child for some years.
What would have made me really unhappy back then, wouldn't have been sceptics like I am one now - with those I would have entered debate, trying to keep it friendly.
It would have been you, seemingly discrediting the whole subject.

And because it is so nice and I am bored:

Originally Posted by Journeyman

The brain is active in dreaming , but what causes dreaming , like what causes consciousness , is simply not possible to determine by scientific method , full stop .Therefore , more study is needed , and in the meantime ,

Do you see the fallacy?
"It is simply not possible to find something out about this by studying these topics. Full stop.
Therefore we need more studies, which will eventually find something out." rolleyes.gif

**dutchraptor** · 06-11-2014 06:19 PM

I stopped at climate change denier. It is absolutely absurd that of all the theories you could pick to mindlessly hate on, you pick on something that makes humans consider their position on earth. Even if climate change was complete and utter bullshit, at least it instills some guilt into the heads of the millions who decide to disrespect nature.

I truly cannot fathom the motivations behind such a belief.

**Darkmatters** · 06-11-2014 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Psychoanalysis Freud admitted was a con , what was it he said ? " I am bringing a plague to America " - courtesy of the Frankfurt School and served with Bernays sauce .

Could you provide a source for these? I tried a search for the quote and the only thing that came up was this thread. When/where did Freud say psychoanalysis was a con, or that he was bringing a plague to America? What would that even be in reference to - neither psychoanalysis nor cultural marxism (did he even live long enough to see the Frankfurt School?) affect only America...

Edit - the closest thing I've found to "psychoanalysis is a con" is at the top of this page on Google Books: Reconfiguring psychoanalysis - but what he actually said was that it's a "far-fetched speculation", meaning I believe that it can't be grounded in absolute hard evidence but must always only rely on probing of the subject's mind through questioning and association*. Quite a different thing from "admitting it was a con"!!

* Of course, that's only speculation, as is the author's rambling in that book (the book reads like postmodern deconstruction - cultural marxism with a side of dijon mustard) - to get a real sense of what he actually meant we'd need to see the quote in its full context.

**StephL** · 06-12-2014 12:48 AM

I find myself in front of the following tirade, talking about me a lot.
But knowing that you readers are all well aware of having the freedom of simply using that little wheel in your mouse - I just let it out, before it gets even longer, which it will probably get anyway. Goes for you as well, dutchraptor - in contrast to the Persinger post and Journeyman - I do not expect anybody to read this at all - no problem.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

I stopped at climate change denier. It is absolutely absurd that of all the theories you could pick to mindlessly hate on, you pick on something that makes humans consider their position on earth. Even if climate change was complete and utter bullshit, at least it instills some guilt into the heads of the millions who decide to disrespect nature.

I truly cannot fathom the motivations behind such a belief.

Hm. I am not exactly a fan of instilling unjustified feelings of guilt - especially since it's sure to produce an unfortunate backlash, once debunked.
So that's why I flickered on the liking. I refuse to be systematic with my likings anyway, though...
But there is simply no reasonable way to deny, that we are undergoing man-made climate change on a big scale - over a long time. I have taken note of a considerably big amount of evidence on the topic, including what the most famous, typically American denialists have to say and their utter debunking, in every single case and aspect. And that renders me completely convinced, that it is simply an undeniable fact.

And the motives for bringing up pseudo-scientific bullshit against it are crystal clear as well.
It is really ironic, how paranoid of governmental and big money sourced corruption in science our dear Journeyman is - and at the same time he falls prey to just such a thing.
The USA are a plutocracy at least under the surface, and above as well - and since a long time. Money rules, and fossil fuels are considerably involved here. If you consider per head energy consumption - it will also tell you something.

This is not nice, and not irrelevant, nor harmless either!!
It is, what holds back reforms and innovations - yes also regulations - which we need to preserve our earth!
Our wonderful, beautiful planet earth, with its already so heavily shrunken biodiversity.
Because of us and our greed and our egoism!
That's what needs to be transcended, people!!
We are on a course, which could very well kill off humanity completely, if we don't get it sorted in time.
And we need to ask ourselves, at which prize will it be, if we do manage!
Because I choose to believe, that we will!!

Climate change denialism is a hoax, instilled by the powerful, especially in brains, which are susceptible to any sort of crank or conspiracy theory already. Marvellous manoeuvre - especially effective in the States - and why am I not surprised? You will find denialists in Germany too, of course, and unfortunately - but it's really not quite comparable. Goes for Holland too I guess, dutchraptor?

I should maybe drag forth some quotes from the above mentioned Dr. Shermer on "The Believing Brain".
What is so exasperating is the predictability of it all - give or take some this and there - like friends of the spiritual rather taking the environment more seriously than conservative Christians - you can see it from ten meters off.
If I personally were a follower of any of Journeyman's pet-topic-theorems, I would feel, that he muddies and dirties my transcendental waters.
Seriously.
I am not familiar with all of the stuff, he mentioned, but with most of it. And luckily there seems to be no serious, undeservedly neglected genius among them - closest to that would probably be Nicola Tesla.
And it would drive me nuts, if it were otherwise.
Lucid dreaming fails to get taken seriously along such lines sometimes - but it is getting rarer and rarer, luckily. It is very sad anyway.
People like him throw everything together, except any real mainstream science. Guys and gals - do you really think, that real science is all boring and irrelevant??
Do you really think, it is all false, and corrupted, and somebody fakes stuff, which the international community then stands behind?
On the background of some sinister conspiracy to discredit relevant, new evidence and insights into the workings of the mind - arguably the hottest topic in all of current science, besides fascinating new developments in physics?
No - the international scientific community only stands united behind that, which holds water!
Wouldn't it maybe make sense to consume some of that - maybe just for fun?
If you want an example - this thread took off pretty nicely ages back - you might scroll down to the videos, if not interested in the first few posts. Let yourself be awed and inspired to think:
http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...%B4t-know.html

The protagonists of pseudo-science make everything seem soo easy, as if it would take two pages to understand quantum physics, and that would be all then, what their audience believes to need, in order to debate about a topic any seriously. It's worse than mere ignorance, when paired with arrogance.
To expect, that the world is as simple as Ayn Rand used to believe, is another good example.
As is young, or any sort of Christian creationism. Heck - any sort of religion is.

When you see somebody talking about science, who doesn't even know anything specific, or even substantial about any area of science, that is a clear indication for being confronted with just this mindset.
Which is otherwise sometimes well-guarded - the "open-minded" umbrella gets opened, with or without noticing the irony. Some have the indecency to explicitly pretend being unbiased, when directly confronted.
Somebody has no sources, behind which a considerable part of the actual experts stands? Which have been independently replicated all over the world? None at all?
Why is that? Are there none which could be relevant?
No? Only the poor ignored, suppressed and incorruptible "whistle-blowers" - the "open-minded" are relevant! At all. Full stop!
gaah.gif

In the very moment a scientist and/or populist opposes anything, which is considered as generally agreed upon in the scientific community - in that moment these people start to listen.
Anything "normal" - any real scientific articles - no they do not get read.
And both is especially true, when it comes to neuroscience and physics. To try and understand the basics of these is too cumbersome, too difficult, seemingly incomprehensible. That's the conclusion - if somebody actually dares to take a look.
Naa - having to put in actual work does not motivate simplistic minds. What they want is sensationalism, the feeling to know better than all these "materialistic, soulless intellectuals".
Yes! It is cumbersome, but worth it! You can come to a proper all-round picture of the state of affairs or a good picture of something that takes your fancy. You just need to be curious and fascinated, and at least putting in the hours as a hobby with access to free information. To be listened to by a serious professional physicist, mathematician or neuroscientist on one of the crank-alarm-topics should take you some years. How come you keep thinking, they would be less intelligent than you, over time? That nobody had thought of it?
I might fight an article I read on a quite famous physics professor's blog. It was on what you need to read and understand and so forth, if you ponder bothering him with perpetual motion.
Ignorance and arrogance.

So here I am ranting again - and actually I wanted to put out a general sorry for the harshness of my latest posts - and I do it hereby!
All this boils about in my brain, though, when I find myself confronted with yet another case of this stereotypical mindset here.
And I have a forum.

But damn, I can understand, why this is such an emotional topic.
I was the same.
I even took two servings of that particular dish in my life.
My mother was a seeker for all her life - until very recently, ironically. Now she doesn't want to hear about my recently rediscovered lucid dreaming, not even of meditation any more. I admired her for her passion, and that she kept acknowledging defeat, but not being willing to give up just yet. But now she feels finally disillusioned in a way, that she seems to discriminate against anything, which has "that ring to it". And I thought, I could build a bridge from dreams - nope. Whatever...
She dragged me about the place as a kid - lots of places. And mostly I was the "wunderkind" - which will happen to any relatively bright and utterly passionate child. After my mother falling prey to one guru after the other - I saw a pattern.
I came to be sort of nerdily proud of having arrived at agnosticism with about twelve years. Just agnostic, not atheistic agnostic like now - I didn't know back then that these don't exclude each other.
I had talked about it with many people, besides going on with my at least six years of Lutherian "indoctrination" at school. Took a bit longer, till I dropped that and chose a class, which was quite newly installed, by name of 'Ethics'. Very interesting, very broad philosophical and comparative religious education. So there I was.

But then something took a hold of me again, in my early twenties, and I was into all sorts of spiritual seekings, this was singularly, clearly and ultimately the most important topic of them all.
Being unsure of what to believe concerning the supernatural or even divine simply wasn't an option. I had to know, what I believe. And I wanted to believe.

So there I was as well. And once you find just one little trace of a shadow of some evidence, once you have a little bit of hope - you want to protect it like a lioness, until to your deep sadness again somebody had shown it to be false.
It's horrible - and also great, because you make spiritual experiences.
Heck - you learn lucid dreaming, because searching is simply what you are.
Enter my little anecdote, which made me leave lucid dreaming be after the first, extremely impressive, hyper-realistic and super scary experience. Not enough, that I was terrified in the dream - I threw all my will-power at "getting back to my body" - and ended up still in sleep paralysis. Why did I not just lucid dream and experience the wonder and glory, which I got ten years later, when I made a second, short exploration?
Because I was afraid.
I even avoided talking about the topic at all because a friend, who had not yet tried out those exercises, was totally terrified by what I told her about my experience. And scared me back in her turn with stuff.
Damn.

I never ever went through SP again, it surely was because I literally used all my might to wake up - arrived consciously in a "body still asleep". Now I know - and I didn't manage a WILD yet, but I did have vibrations and optical hallucinations (beautiful electrical-blue mandala hanging behind my eyelids). Now, with proper knowledge about what REM atonia is and knowing hypnagogic hallucinations for what they are from a first person perspective - I would now love to get the full show one day!!
With OBE, which is in contrast to astral projection (AP) a neutral term. An Out of Body "Experience". That, which I experience.
I would like to experience such an OBE WILD with bells and whistles and SP before - standing up from my bed seemingly without a transition to sleep, and into something looking almost like reality.
Absolutely understandable to draw supernatural conclusions - without proper understanding.

The actual problem back then was, that I was explicitly primed towards even initially expecting evil entities.
Everybody who has gobbled down these books, like stupid me did, knows what I am talking about.

And then to find out it is fiction, and not even authentically South American Shamanism, but invented by some American sociologist and best-seller-author!
That's something I came to consider as evil - scaring people off things like lucid dreaming!
Wow.
How did I get here?
I think, I just leave it stand as it is.

Growing up "properly" for a second time came with another story as well.
I had a second short flick with Christianity, thanks to a charismatic young woman on the street, making promotion for her church - "Free Christians" - whatever that exactly entailed, I forgot.
I lost my aghast boyfriend because of that - being a bit on the spiritual and superstitious side, but rather covertly, was just about acceptable, but not Christianity. And I lost "all faith" in the aftermath. And good so. Lucky me - it took only a couple of months and the boyfriend wasn't worth it. But not because of his position on this matter.

My residual dream-fragments of the second time around, of maybe becoming enlightened, or a witch, or some such, evaporated under my critical eye on this occasion - more or less in one go.
Seems I needed it all twice.

If you honestly look out there and really take seriously both sides of the "divide" - there is bound to come some sort of epiphany-like click, where you just let go, and feel free for it, disillusioned in the best possible interpretation of the term.
At least that is approximately, what happened to me.
But I didn't especially nor necessarily want to have to think that way - but the evidence is overwhelming, both what we have and what we fail to come up with.

This is some sort of confession meanwhile, and I still wonder how I got here - I know this is not extended discussion, either - theoretically. rolleyes.gif

**Darkmatters** · 06-12-2014 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by StephL

explicitly expecting evil entities

Quote of the year!! Just for the alliteration if nothing else.

And I love the idea that you 'grew up again' into an agnostic atheist and skeptic - sort of the rational response to 'born again Christians'!!

I love the Castaneda books, but only for the idea of the Nagual and the Tonal as the unconscious and the conscious mind respectively, and for the discussion about the Way of the Warrior, as a good solid way of life in some regards - nothing spiritual or supernatural.

**StephL** · 06-12-2014 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Could you provide a source for these? I tried a search for the quote and the only thing that came up was this thread. When/where did Freud say psychoanalysis was a con, or that he was bringing a plague to America? What would that even be in reference to - neither psychoanalysis nor cultural marxism (did he even live long enough to see the Frankfurt School?) affect only America...

Edit - the closest thing I've found to "psychoanalysis is a con" is at the top of this page on Google Books: Reconfiguring psychoanalysis - but what he actually said was that it's a "far-fetched speculation", meaning I believe that it can't be grounded in absolute hard evidence but must always only rely on probing of the subject's mind through questioning and association*. Quite a different thing from "admitting it was a con"!!

* Of course, that's only speculation, as is the author's rambling in that book (the book reads like postmodern deconstruction - cultural marxism with a side of dijon mustard) - to get a real sense of what he actually meant we'd need to see the quote in its full context.

hitheresmiley.gif
How sweet - we start to all meet here again!
Yepp - that's some nice example of what he might later come to denominate as troll-fodder again!

But too late Journeyman - you spewed out a whole truckload of fodder for people of a rational, scientific mindset to debunk!

I might even come and add some of my own Freud scepticism, but not just yet. It is not on topic - psychoanalysis never was a "con" - let alone was it denominated such by Freud. But he was an ardent atheist, as opposed to Jung, and I believe to remember a quote, about how psychoanalysis would be to the detriment of America's bigoted Christianity. Not sure, though - and not my topic.

You go through with it Darkmatters - I will be pleased to watch!

I am still here - just saw that while editing! biggrin.gif

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Originally Posted by StephL

explicitly expecting evil entities

Quote of the year!! Just for the alliteration if nothing else.

And I love the idea that you 'grew up again' into an agnostic atheist and skeptic - sort of the rational response to 'born again Christians'!!

Thank you! I wasn't even aware of the forth one, coming in per edit ..smiley-blush.png
And for the other one as well!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

I love the Castaneda books, but only for the idea of the Nagual and the Tonal as the unconscious and the conscious mind respectively, and for the discussion about the Way of the Warrior, as a good solid way of life in some regards - nothing spiritual or supernatural.

Me too - but does this not make his books even more treacherous in the end?
Most crap is obviously crap - well - depends on your level of being informed.
But so much in Castaneda's "teachings" is true, deep and meaningful - hell - they worked!!
That is, what I view as a true characteristic of proper science.
"But what if you're wrong?" - somebody
"... because science works, bitches!" - Richard Dawkins
Dawkins said it just like this in a podium-discussion. And I respect him for using "bad language" here. Very much so, and specifically for it.

And still, despite all the wisdom in Castaneda's books, I was deceived into completely unjustified fear - ultimately by the author wanting to make a profit.
Held back from true explorations of my consciousness.
Just like with fucking Christianity, only differently.

Finally something of the thousand things, which I passionately tried, and read, and practised, and took to heart, and dared - this worked.
Besides plain meditation, which did and still does work, too.
And what I experienced, following his teachings, was totally and truly terrifying - but completely unnecessary.
Utter bullshit, at the metaphysical heart of it.

My first adult lucid dream was by miles the most impressive experience of my life.
And it is still so - lucid dreaming is maybe the most profound thing in my whole life.
But I feel much the wiser now.
Thanks to having gained insight into the science around it - I recommend to check out this subforum:
Lucid Dreaming News

It's early morning and this is what I'll do:

**Journeyman** · 06-12-2014 03:35 AM

Don't want to antagonize , attack or offend anyone . Protecting the earth and the environment are noble intentions .
But a few thoughts :
Holocaust Denier . Vile , despicable , Nazi , trash etc
Global Warming Denier . Anyone see a link ? What other words have Denier attached to them in the mainstream media ?

Agenda 21 . Heard of that in the mainstream media ? Eugenics ? Plan to exterminate most of the population of the earth and install UN law in your country ?
Now , is that a fact , or is that a ' Conspiracy Theory ' ? Find out for yourself .
Global Warming is the main stated reason for the need for Agenda 21 . As terrorism is the stated reason for the war on terror . Rather confusing since terrorists are now the allies of and funded by NATO , US etc , to knock out Syria . But I digress .
I just do not believe in global warming - I used to . That is based on looking impartially for evidence pro and con .
So I guess I am a Global Warming ' Denier ' .

**fogelbise** · 06-12-2014 06:00 AM

Journeyman, I would like to issue you a challenge. Who knows...maybe you can change my mind!

Please read this episode recap that includes the details for what sounds like an excellent case for man-made global warming and tell me if you still deny global warming and why:
https://www.google.com/#q=global+war...ined+on+cosmos

What would you say to this info on Agenda 21?

•Fact: Agenda 21 was a document adopted unanimously by 178 countries – including the U.S. represented by George H.W. Bush – at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (also known as the Earth Summit). Agenda 21 reflects a broad international consensus that worsening poverty and growing stresses on the environment require greater integration between environmental and development concerns.
•Fact: Agenda 21 is not a treaty and is not legally binding. Agenda 21 has no legal authority or precedent over a local U.S. jurisdiction or over a citizen. It is a blueprint or vision for development that simultaneously promotes economic growth, improved quality of life, and environmental protection. The conservative Heritage Foundation concurs that this is a nonbinding document.
•Fact: Agenda 21 does not call for the elimination of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices, or family farms. It is fully consistent with personal freedoms and the rights of citizens to own property, homes, cars, and farms.
•Fact: Agenda 21 does not take supremacy over U.S. law. National governments are in charge of their own development.

**Journeyman** · 06-12-2014 07:15 AM

Absolutely no interest in changing your Mind Fogelbise . Your mind is your property , not mine .
Should you wish to research independently and impartially the history of eugenics , J&H Huxley , Darwin , Fabian Society , etc , that is entirely up to you .
If you support Agenda 21 , that is also up to you , and I am not going to have a bird over it either way . I do not support Agenda 21 , that is up to me .
Fair enough ?

**Darkmatters** · 06-12-2014 07:54 AM

Journeyman, did you miss my question to you above? Here it is again in case you did:

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Psychoanalysis Freud admitted was a con , what was it he said ? " I am bringing a plague to America " - courtesy of the Frankfurt School and served with Bernays sauce .

Could you provide a source for these? I tried a search for the quote and the only thing that came up was this thread. When/where did Freud say psychoanalysis was a con, or that he was bringing a plague to America?

**StephL** · 06-12-2014 02:15 PM

Thank you fogelbise!!
Now that's the rational way to get at this!

Originally Posted by Journeyman

What is Agenda 21 , but the biggest eugenics program in history , based on supposed science . Not millions , billions of people , are in the cross-hairs .

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Agenda 21 . Heard of that in the mainstream media ? Eugenics ? Plan to exterminate most of the population of the earth and install UN law in your country ?
Now , is that a fact , or is that a ' Conspiracy Theory ' ? Find out for yourself .
Global Warming is the main stated reason for the need for Agenda 21 .

Originally Posted by fogelbise

What would you say to this info on Agenda 21?

•Fact: Agenda 21 was a document adopted unanimously by 178 countries – including the U.S. represented by George H.W. Bush – at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (also known as the Earth Summit). Agenda 21 reflects a broad international consensus that worsening poverty and growing stresses on the environment require greater integration between environmental and development concerns.

•Fact: Agenda 21 is not a treaty and is not legally binding. Agenda 21 has no legal authority or precedent over a local U.S. jurisdiction or over a citizen. It is a blueprint or vision for development that simultaneously promotes economic growth, improved quality of life, and environmental protection. The conservative Heritage Foundation concurs that this is a nonbinding document.

•Fact: Agenda 21 does not call for the elimination of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership, individual travel choices, or family farms. It is fully consistent with personal freedoms and the rights of citizens to own property, homes, cars, and farms.

•Fact: Agenda 21 does not take supremacy over U.S. law. National governments are in charge of their own development.

And - who would have expected that - once called out, he dodges and ducks and wants to change the topic.
Besides hoping not to be called out again by Darkmatters, but that didn't work out.

So you reanimate a debate after five and a half months, Journeyman, but you do not wish to change anybody's mind?
Heck - you must be one of the rare species of people willing to change their own mind!?
No wait...

Proving, that it is not completely pointless to engage with people of Journeyman's calibre - like in the case of Persinger, I just learned something. Namely what the Fabian Society is:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Fabian Society is a British socialist organisation whose purpose is to advance the principles of socialism via gradualist and reformist means.[1][2] The society laid many of the foundations of the Labour Party and subsequently affected the policies of states emerging from the decolonisation of the British Empire, most notably India and Singapore.

Originally, the Fabian society was committed to the establishment of a socialist economy, alongside a commitment to British imperialism as a progressive and modernizing force.[3] Today its viewpoints are more social democratic.

Today, the society functions primarily as a think tank and is one of 15 socialist societies affiliated with the Labour Party. Similar societies exist in Australia (the Australian Fabian Society), Canada (the Douglas-Coldwell Foundation and the now disbanded League for Social Reconstruction) and in New Zealand.

Got to say - I am terrified by them down to the marrow of my bones!

...totally off topic: I didn't realize there was a forth e, which came in after edit - and now I edited once more, not wanting to leave a weird impression... rolleyes.gif
No, you don't have to understand this.

**fogelbise** · 06-12-2014 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Absolutely no interest in changing your Mind Fogelbise . Your mind is your property , not mine .
Should you wish to research independently and impartially the history of eugenics , J&H Huxley , Darwin , Fabian Society , etc , that is entirely up to you .
If you support Agenda 21 , that is also up to you , and I am not going to have a bird over it either way . I do not support Agenda 21 , that is up to me .
Fair enough ?

Journeyman, I forgot to mention that I did read up on the controversy over Agenda 21 and found it to be a much ado about nothing and old news. It is a publicly available document which hardly seems like a good way to undermine the public. I have also looked into arguments for denying global warming and it begs the question: who stands to benefit from the status quo (continuing to pump way more CO2 into the atmosphere than could be currently produced by natural sources)? I was hoping you would return the favor, toss aside the blinders and open your mind...or at least provide good counter points to the links and info I provided. Anyway, perhaps you are just trolling. Unless you are willing to put up some concrete facts...See ya.

**Journeyman** · 06-13-2014 10:32 AM

I have family members who are genocide survivors , personal interest . Have read hundreds of hours ; eugenics , Agenda 21 etc .
But presently very busy , working , no time for debate . My apologies .
With respect for your right to your opinions , in civility . Thanks for your understanding .

**StephL** · 06-14-2014 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by Journeyman

I have family members who are genocide survivors , personal interest . Have read hundreds of hours ; eugenics , Agenda 21 etc .
But presently very busy , working , no time for debate . My apologies .
With respect for your right to your opinions , in civility . Thanks for your understanding .

Well - of course I respect , that you want to cease taking part by now ! wink.gif
I am just recapitulating here - I don't expect a reaction.
But it rounds up our Persinger business:

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Stephl
From what I observe , your comment grudgingly agrees with my assertion that science is used as a belief system by "some people, or people sometimes", dismisses out of hand and does not address at all the peer reviewed and patented science I refer to , and ends with an ad hominem against Nikola Tesla , a logical fallacy . Thus I read in brief summary ; Yes Scientism exists , avoid the points , add logical fallacy . Nikola Tesla may or may not have been a 'troubled man' ; that has nothing to do whatsoever with the technology he pioneered .

Dr Michael Persinger has done nothing but peer reviewed , published scientific study , was formerly instrumental in development of military remote viewing technology , which is a fact on the ground whether or not one wishes to say it cannot exist according to 'Relativity' . Dr Colin Ross is also a published scientist . Todd Murphy has developed a technology from Michael Persingers work , that is functional .

I was just commenting on the post ; I was not addressing you in particularas you state ( "shouldn´t be that you address me with these ruminations on people behaving as if Science was just another form of dogma, a belief-system like religion." ) , but was just adding a side comment to the thread .

That's from the first of December 2013 - from the last page, page seven.
Make of it what you want . wink.gif

Isn't it just really symptomatic for Journeyman's dodging, that he brought up Persinger back then already, and as one of his main references?
And even accusing me of not addressing his points on "peer reviewed and patented science" by Persinger et. al.
Now, half a year later - he triggers my quite extensive "treatise" on the guy - and up to now he has completely refused to comment on it.
Interesting, isn't it just ?!

I have this nice info-graphic, originally for the context of countering evolution-denialism. But it has what it takes to demonstrate, what is meant by 'theory' specifically in science.
I find it more palatable and more useful than throwing in one more "funny" gravity-denier - it is actually meant to educate people friendlily:

Oh - and for how it all begun: http://www.dreamviews.com/general-dr...ced-brain.html

**LDman** · 06-14-2014 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by StephL

Oh - and for how it all begun: http://www.dreamviews.com/general-dr...ced-brain.html

**OpheliaBlue** · 06-15-2014 12:24 AM

Technically, "explicitly expecting evil entities" is an assonance.

Best part if the thread, I agree.

**Darkmatters** · 06-15-2014 12:33 AM

^ Props for using entities and assonance in the same sentence.

**StephL** · 06-15-2014 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by OpheliaBlue

Technically, "explicitly expecting evil entities" is an assonance.

Best part if the thread, I agree.

Wow!
Will the learning never stop?! Hopefully not!

You are spot on - this was it:

Originally Posted by StephL

The actual problem back then was, that I was explicitly primed towards even initially expecting evil entities.

And 'assonance' allows for the vowels not being stringed up all in a row - all five of them, even - they can be anywhere:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Assonance is the repetition of vowel sounds to create internal rhyming within phrases or sentences, and together with alliteration and consonance serves as one of the building blocks of verse. Assonance is a rhyme, the identity of which depends merely on the vowel sounds. Thus, an assonance is merely a syllabic resemblance.

Assonance is found more often in verse than in prose. It is used in (mainly modern) English-language poetry, and is particularly important in Old French, Spanish and the Celtic languages.

Nought German - and I never heard of it, too.
Somehow it is sweet to write in another language.
It feels like being a bit removed from what the words mean - also lacking a lot of the cultural backdrop, which sometimes makes me self-conscious in German.
Again I learned something here - it becomes chronic!

Blaaah. biggrin.gif
Thanks!!

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ Props for using entities and assonance in the same sentence.

We are all poets - and some don't even know it!
Or so.
biggrin.gif

**OpheliaBlue** · 06-15-2014 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

^ Props for using entities and assonance in the same sentence.

lmao!!!

**StephL** · 06-16-2014 10:00 PM

I will now do a double-post again because I cannot edit any more - as I said repeatedly - meanwhile I find it completely correct to have a 24 h limit on it. One of the things I changed my mind on - and I will eventually get that in the respective thread in meta as well.
My edit time is over - but as I just very recently understood - one can always make another post! Or so.

I can understand that post #198 should have been made like this by me, instead of posting two singular ones, since that was still in my edit limit. I forgot why I double-posted back then - there was some reason or other, though.
And now I fear, it will sort of look as if I wanted to bump this thread with another double post - work for mods - but that is not what I want.
The thread seems dead for all practical purposes - astralboy not being active and Journeyman "having admitted defeat".
Or however things really stand - how should I know?

So what is my edit-urge-gone-second-post all about?
It is about my story, my "anecdote", where I was actually posting on lucid dreaming - fitting this sub-forum maybe the most.
And I left something out.
While making this post - I had written a paragraph in which I wanted to mention a conclusion I drew a longish while back - directly connected with my personal experiences laid out here. It would have been directly on topic of this thread - but I lost it now. Copy-pastomania taking it's toll. It will highly probably show up later, though!

But first of all - this is for people, who for their own reasons have read the following part of my "tirade" in post 184.
I would like to "shortly" get back to this part:

Originally Posted by StephL

So there I was as well. And once you find just one little trace of a shadow of some evidence, once you have a little bit of hope - you want to protect it like a lioness, until to your deep sadness again somebody had shown it to be false.
It's horrible - and also great, because you make spiritual experiences.
Heck - you learn lucid dreaming, because searching is simply what you are.
Enter my little anecdote, which made me leave lucid dreaming be after the first, extremely impressive, hyper-realistic and super scary experience. Not enough, that I was terrified in the dream - I threw all my will-power at "getting back to my body" - and ended up still in sleep paralysis. Why did I not just lucid dream and experience the wonder and glory, which I got ten years later, when I made a second, short exploration?
Because I was afraid.
I even avoided talking about the topic at all because a friend, who had not yet tried out those exercises, was totally terrified by what I told her about my experience. And scared me back in her turn with stuff.
Damn.

I never ever went through SP again, it surely was because I literally used all my might to wake up - arrived consciously in a "body still asleep". Now I know - and I didn't manage a WILD yet, but I did have vibrations and optical hallucinations (beautiful electrical-blue mandala hanging behind my eyelids). Now, with proper knowledge about what REM atonia is and knowing hypnagogic hallucinations for what they are from a first person perspective - I would now love to get the full show one day!!
With OBE, which is in contrast to astral projection (AP) a neutral term. An Out of Body "Experience". That, which I experience.
I would like to experience such an OBE WILD with bells and whistles and SP before - standing up from my bed seemingly without a transition to sleep, and into something looking almost like reality.
Absolutely understandable to draw supernatural conclusions - without proper understanding.

The actual problem back then was, that I was explicitly primed towards even initially expecting evil entities.
Everybody who has gobbled down these books, like stupid me did, knows what I am talking about.

And then to find out it is fiction, and not even authentically South American Shamanism, but invented by some American sociologist and best-seller-author!
That's something I came to consider as evil - scaring people off things like lucid dreaming!
Wow.
How did I get here?
I think, I just leave it stand as it is.

And what I left out is not spectacular, just important for me. It is that I clearly remember to have been lucid dreaming as a child - no idea of exactly which age. Maybe from four to twelve somewhere - just the range, I really do not know.
Maybe my mother knows, I told her about it back then - but what I do remember for sure is the following:

I was fully aware what dreams are, as opposed to real life, and I was fully aware, that in my lucid dreams, I was simply self-conscious in a dream. I also knew, that I could do special things. Especially flying about - these dreams were fully realistic, but I left them so. Not because I tried to do advanced dream-control and it didn't work. I just simply didn't try - I mainly went "air-swimming" like in a children's book with pictures.
I flew to beautiful but "naturalistic" places. And I don't remember either monsters nor elves or "dream-guides", nor did I have a full set of super-powers.

I just had fun and didn't think it through, didn't arrive at the notion, that my imagination might not only be a means to make me fly, not only throwing a shine of beauty on the scenery - but that it could enable me to transform into another creature, or make me an incorporeal point of view - and many more wondrous things.
I simply did not think of it - maybe because I was too young. And for some reason, many people believe, that lucid dreams in children must be spectacular. I think not. There are several real life people among my friends, who remember having had LDs in childhood as well - and similar to mine. I might be lucky knowing them.

But it did not click, when I had the Castaneda elicited experience - I did not bring my childhood LDs into context back then.
I expected to appear in another plane of existence - my form ethereal, but real - even explicitly expecting my evil entities etc.
Expanding my assonance beyond reason!! biggrin.gif

Hehe - the German team seems to have won in football - when I was in the middle of writing - there were fireworks going off in broad sunshine.
I kid you not!
So there - yet another of steph's posts!