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

I just want to add my two cents, although I cant possibly hope to match you guys and the time and effort you put into your posts
I also may be slightly outdated on this thread and its goings on.
I honestly don't know how my consciousness exists, where or what it is, but I would like to try and logically thrash it out.

It is true that there is no evidence that the brain produces the consciousness, and it could very well be that it is just a receiver for our minds, but that theory shouldn't be placed any higher than any others that are out there. As far as I know no theory has any more actual, substantial, objective evidence than any of the others, and so they are all theory's. Fantastic. People can believe whatever they want in such a situation, and I certaintly wont hold it against them. But, treating theory's as facts is not a good thing.

For example, the argument that 'my experiences are the absolute truth' is fundamentally flawed. Your experiences are what is perceived by your brain, and although they are correct as far as we know, whos to say that they aren't completely wrong. Imagine if you were colourblind, and saw a certain colour as grey. You wouldn't have any idea that you were wrong, and would most likely think that your perception of the colour as grey was the absolute truth, when in actual fact it is, say, red. Actually, this argument could be used both ways, as all of the people that see it as red could be wrong, it could be blue, black, octopus, whatever. The thing is you can't judge things as fact or not only based on your personal experiences, as they could be deeply flawed, even if you think they are the truth.

I just had a thought here actually, that this could be applied to any situation. Science, maths, anything that we take for granted or think is right could just be us perceiving things wrong. The world could actually be upside down (bad example ), but we wouldn't know it unless we perceived it as such.
I hope I haven't confused everyone, but the point I was trying to make is that basing facts on what you have personally experienced or perceived could result in massive errors.

This logic means however that nothing at all in our life is certain, and everything could be a complete lie, which is starting to hurt my head, but I will press on. It is almost like being in a non lucid dream, where you believe everything is real, 100%, until you wake up and realize that it was a dream. The thing is though, that either the dream, or the waking, or anything else could be correct, we just don't know.

We just don''t know.

Living life like that however probably wouldn't be beneficial, so we should use what we perceive to be the real world now and believe it to be the real word, because until we find out if it is or not, for all that matters it IS the real world. Linking this back to theories about consciousness and such, believing in a theory is fine, because until it is disproved, or another is proven, it is no more or no less valid than any other theory. But if people try to persuade others that a theory is proven, is fact without basing that on any evidence, then that is not right.

ANYWAY

I've rambled a bit but I believe that because there is no evidence really for the consciousness theories floating about, the arguments surrounding it are infinitely more interesting. Anyone one of you and your theories could be correct, we just don't know it yet. Certainly, through current knowledge some theories are a lot more likely to be true than others, but again the entire discussion around these theories is fascinating.

Sorry for the wall of text, and if I made any glaring errors or confused you, but I just wanted to share my opinion that anyone can believe what they want about the consciousness, because as of yet there's no evidence to stop them.

I personally believe however that the spirit, consciousness, who we are is integrally tied to our body, our body mind and spirit as I see it are one. I don't see how something as complex as our minds could somehow come from an external source, then be filtered through our brains and into our bodies, when the brain seems to be designed for being our mind, if that makes sense. Its hard to explain, but anyway I've talked enough

Originally Posted by BlairBros

believing in a theory is fine, because until it is disproved, or another is proven, it is no more or no less valid than any other theory.

The problem here is that no one will ever be able to prove a theory, because there is always another possibility. It doesn't matter but it also means that a dispute can never be solved .

The way I chose which theories I accept on a day to day basis is by giving weight to theories that fit our current world view almost perfectly. I don't necessarily believe in it wholeheartedly but for simplicities sake I chose to accept one as fact. It may seem weird but almost all scientists utilize occams razor to some extent purely because it works extremely well.

To progress human knowledge we must strive in some direction, if we look back on the past we see that the most efficient method of progressing is accepting previous scientific knowledge to an extent. If the knowledge seems off, or not conclusive then you must not follow it.

What I am getting at is that no one is wrong in this thread, because there is no set way of choosing your beliefs. However if you are looking for the most effective way to progress knowledge than you have to conform to beliefs every now and then.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Steph:

Here are just a couple of very brief responses, as time doesn't allow more right now, but you were so thorough and thoughtful I felt obliged. I'll add more later if I can...


Why not, indeed! I think merging my mind and spirit concepts would work just fine, especially considering the premise here that spirit is necessarily a "unit" of mind until it is proven to come from somewhere else.
I suppose it can be enough, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly is enough logically. I guess for me it isn't enough because, though mind does reside in the brain, the potential for mind wandering beyond the confines of my skull is most appealing... a fit of hopeful imagination, I guess!


Yes. Spirit, to me, is a concept, or perhaps a facet of mind... it is not a literal thing in or heads (aside from, of course, the actual bits of electrochemical information stored in our brains under the heading of "spirit," but for me that is not important).



That is very important, I think. I had intended to say something to that effect earlier, because it must be said that spiritualism, or that need for more, might be nothing more than an evolutionary survival instinct. That's a bit of a downer for the theosophists out there, but it could very well be quite true! Also, though that creator/final judge question is an important factor overall, it never mattered much to me personally.

Fully agreed - and yes - I do see the appeal as well!

My reaction is - let´s make it so - lets find a way to survive death with our mind-spirit doing a removal and finding a new physical home to reside in - preferably one not in a technical contraption, but in something biological.
Maybe even be able to give this opportunity through to ones offspring - or just some snapshot-kernel, around which a body can be re-grown..

Originally Posted by Sageous

No, I don't think dreams come from a place called "Spirit," not a literal place, or dimension, or even separate or unique energy form. But, since the notion of spirit is bound quite deeply into our minds, and is always swirling about in our unconscious, that notion will find itself included in dreams.

Oh yeah - this concept is deeply ingrained - from culture, but also from within ourselves, I believe.
Like the "God-region" or how you want to call it is there and does it´s effects in all of us.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I may have posed the question, does the spiritual realm exist? But I never said it does, as I haven't proven such a thing to myself yet. Sure we can think it exists, even intuit so, but just imagining a thing does not make it real.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Good question; and the answer is "Probably nothing." But let me turn that question on its side and ask back: What if that "swinging network in your brain, going about it´s rhythms" is producing something bigger than itself, that something is spirit?

Well - that would be something wondrous and most fascinating and also exotic indeed!
Just why does nobody from beyond really communicate with us on a regular basis ..?

Originally Posted by Sageous

That is an interesting concept. Except for one small thing: just as I don't consider the words appearing before your eyes on your screen right now are my actual thoughts, those wave patterns are the ink, not the words, of mind.

Hmm.. yes - the words of the mind would be the primary direct content reflected by these waves onto another swinging system next door.
And there is the very core of the problem with intuitive understanding - I can also not really wrap my mind around such 3D patterns in motion being me - having this mysterious point of view.
But since the concept of a spirit does in no way make it easier, once you think it through - like - if it consists of "something unknown" - we have the same leap of imagination to do as to how this "something other" can be the "I"..

Originally Posted by Sageous

Yes.
To the extent that animals have consciousness, yes, but if by mind you mean self-awareness, then no; as far as I know most animals lack mind (I can think of a few exceptions, probably).
As I said somewhere above, I have a feeling that spirit, as we're discussing it here, was created by the activity of our brains. Think of it as the exhaust from the engines of our very powerful brains. So yes, I see no need to suggest it came from outside... I hope I didn't give the impression that I was.

It can't. But perhaps it can project those exotic and occult energies into the physical realm, in the form of thought energy?

I think the very fact of the brain's incredible complexity is what may enable its product (thought) to survive its physical demise. I could of course be wrong, but, since I won't know until after I'm dead, wrong or right is pretty much academic, isn't it?

Well - I was not entirely sure - but now I am - now I think I get it.

You said it in your last post - but I wanted to make sure I understand, because it is a quite unique - at least very unusual thought - the brain as the literal progenitor of a spirit which then maybe develops a reach transcending (..hehe..) the physical brain´s life-span.
Much, much closer to my view, than say it is given to us by some God (that I knew you didn´t say..).
Actually exactly my view with the exception of the possibility to do away with the brain and stuff goes on functioning.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Not really. When you engage in searches like this, you must have a clear understanding that you might very well be wrong. If you do not, then delusion ensues, and you cannot break from the search, even after you've proven nothing can be found.

Yepp!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Agreed, and, yes, this was both fun and truly thought provoking -- also quite awe-inspiring, as I am amazed at the work yo put into your posts!

Thank you - I am happy you see it so and not as an attack out of the bushworks!
I am amazed myself at the amount of text I have produced into this thread..
Maybe because it is a very important topic for me - and I have never put any of my conclusions down in words anywhere before..
Please do not feel obliged to write back - this is a sabbatical of mine - and I am free to go about my hobbies in whichever (cheap..) way at the moment - writing seemingly becoming one of them..

Thank you and all others on here for inspiring me to do something I like - even if I lost quite a lot of sleep (and darts-practice!) like that..

Originally Posted by BlairBros

I just want to add my two cents, although I cant possibly hope to match you guys and the time and effort you put into your posts
I also may be slightly outdated on this thread and its goings on.
I honestly don't know how my consciousness exists, where or what it is, but I would like to try and logically thrash it out.

For example, the argument that 'my experiences are the absolute truth' is fundamentally flawed.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

The thing is you can't judge things as fact or not only based on your personal experiences, as they could be deeply flawed, even if you think they are the truth.

Heartfelt Yes to that - and very pertaining to this thread and esp. the original poster of it!


It is about this:

Originally Posted by BlairBros

It is true that there is no evidence that the brain produces the consciousness, and it could very well be that it is just a receiver for our minds, but that theory shouldn't be placed any higher than any others that are out there.

No - you are right - the theory of the spirit should not be put higher than the theory, that there is no spirit.
It should rationally not stand on the same level either though!!

Originally Posted by BlairBros

Actually, this argument could be used both ways,

Your experiences are what is perceived by your brain, and although they are correct as far as we know, whos to say that they aren't completely wrong. Imagine if you were colourblind, and saw a certain colour as grey. You wouldn't have any idea that you were wrong, and would most likely think that your perception of the colour as grey was the absolute truth, when in actual fact it is, say, red.

Not really - this very example will help me argue my point - I am sure, I could make a convincing case for that colour-blind person to accept and acknowledge this fact of him being colour-blind.
That people, who are not having some sort of physical dysfunction of sight and/or visual computation - do associate a categorically distinct meaning - because they all inherently and easily provably do use another distinct word for this wavelength, than you do.

If I came along to a colour-blind person, and he is convinced of something being as grey as ashes, which is in truth is red.
Then if I showed him the actual light wavelength being reflected by that red object is about 650 nm.
And I could prove to you, that humans, who are not colour- or completely blind - or otherwise impaired - do ascribe to it a distinct perception and a distinct semantic label - another meaning.

And that "our" grey is something distinct other than "your grey", which encompasses our grey and our red.
Then I could explain to you - and show you the evidence - of there being 3 distinct receptors in human retina, which are behind colour-vision.
And that people, who ascribe to the colour red the attribute grey do have a defect in function of these receptors (one of them, I think it was - forgot more details..).
They in this case have an other distinct commonality - namely a gene locus on both X-chromosomes, that leads to this.
I know x-chromosome, because males have colour-blindness more often because of that.

You get one gene from mother - one from father.
Males have only one x - if this is out of order - syndrome is there.
In females - if there is one x which is in order - that is enough.
I remembered that very easily.

Okay - say - you had heard and gotten insight into all the information above - would you then still be convinced, you were right all the time?
That what all the other idiots call red is really only another shade of grey with a somehow weird and not fitting wavelength - they are all deluded as to their shared experience of reality?
They all insist that there is a difference to grey - so they must be mad?
No you won´t.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

as all of the people that see it as red could be wrong, it could be blue, black, octopus, whatever.

This line of reasoning is of course valid anyway - despite in the case of colour-blindness - there are instantly available reasonable explanations, which tend to convince people.
Not so with other contents of the mind, though, which are held as deep inner truths, even if everybody else disagrees.

And doing this holding on can in itself be either rational - or irrational.

Lets say - technology breaks down - we are thrown back at a level of medieval culture after a big war.
People come to power - however they do it in the ensuing chaos - that are doing very good religious propaganda - obviously to me, to hold and exert power over the poor survivors.
And most get swayed and give up their freedom and become sucked out.

No - I would not give up my world view then - if "everybody" else did it - I would not take that as valid argument, that they are right.
Not like with the red - not at all.


But I think it is irrational and wishful thinking to not only go off the mainstream - if agnosticism/atheism is mainstream in the "first world", is unfortunately not even clear. Nor static, which is good again.

but to completely ignore and often enough contradict glaringly several hundred years of earnestly and meticulously, and most successfully and perfectly applicable science - esp. physics and specifically neuroscience.
And this is not science steered somehow nationally, or by some other super mighty organisations - this has been done and proven over and over and all around the world by perfectly normal people.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

I just had a thought here actually, that this could be applied to any situation. Science, maths, anything that we take for granted or think is right could just be us perceiving things wrong. The world could actually be upside down (bad example ), but we wouldn't know it unless we perceived it as such.

I hope I haven't confused everyone, but the point I was trying to make is that basing facts on what you have personally experienced or perceived could result in massive errors.

You can in principle apply it to any situation - just please be honest about the probability of such a scenario.

Yes - I think, that you might have confused me and/or "somebody"
This touches on the extremely common problem, which comes up when arguing with a person, who believes some variant of dualism.

Because it is in the very nature of a true advocate of science - to concede that ultimately - there can be no way to reach any 100% proof, of anything.
And specifically they get hung up on the assessment, that yes - I am not 100% sure that there is no such thing as the spirit with it´s lofty attributes.
Sometimes Heisenberg is invoked, if someone wants to lead you over uncertainty principle into the next round..
Easiest example why I am an agnostic: We could be a simulation run on some advanced being´s computational arrangements.

But that is an honesty, which is often unfortunately "lost on" the dualist - the reaction is mostly - "Ha!! There you say it yourself - you just choose to "believe in science" and I choose to believe something other - we are actually on the same level - why argue?! Peace be with you sister.. "

Then there is again the problem with having to deal with physicists and mathematicians, who get a good knitting over and cutting down for argumentation - and if you want to answer competently - you are in for it - not faiir..lol

Extremely unfortunate is the misconception, that people who are advocating scientific thought and methods would do "believe in science".

Science is about knowledge - of direct objective and also subjective observation and experimentation and repetition and test this by zig other scientists, and under fierce competition.

Subjective experience is something needed and also valid when we are talking living nervous systems - and there can be collected data, which esp. in comparison can lead to insights.
If these insights lead to new and useful methods of doing something or if they make it possible to give more accurate predictions of human behaviour and expressions - then they are validated in practice.


And that is the science - you can know "how stuff works" at a current level of understanding, where science has arrived - never the end of the road.
You can use that knowledge and thus prove it to yourself to be valid, as well - the results of experiments/predictions you yourself do!

There is nothing to believe in except the credibility and honesty of millions of scientists all over the world and the centuries!

And only a very few people would really seriously think, that millions of scientists are concertedly and all over the world and over centuries only pretending, that they get the very same results with the very same experiments?
All of them in on one unified conspiracy - like astralboy hinted at with his "people don´t want you to have free energy.."?
Not bloody likely!


But it can also in principle not be helped, that you get hung up on "admitting" uncertainty as a science advocate.
This admitting is often extremely hard to do for religious people - or not at all possible - but the more open-minded "beyonders"
at least admit uncertainty - that I like.

What is left for you is invoking probabilities and Occam´s Razor.

What do you expect to be more likely - and how much more likely - roughly, BlairBros - and all:

a) Your personal experience - esp. when in states of special brain-wave configurations, for example in dreams?
b) Science and mathematics of several hundred years and millions of clever people combined?

I ascribe vastly more credibility to the second option - any day - and thought, so would you.
That is rational, I "believe".

Originally Posted by BlairBros

This logic means however that nothing at all in our life is certain, and everything could be a complete lie, which is starting to hurt my head, but I will press on. It is almost like being in a non lucid dream, where you believe everything is real, 100%, until you wake up and realize that it was a dream. The thing is though, that either the dream, or the waking, or anything else could be correct, we just don't know.

We just don''t know.

No we don´t - but we got some pretty darn good theories and evidence and there is put in a lot of quality thought - on the side of science and philosophy - and great that they go about it together more and more..

Originally Posted by BlairBros

Living life like that however probably wouldn't be beneficial, so we should use what we perceive to be the real world now and believe it to be the real word, because until we find out if it is or not, for all that matters it IS the real world. Linking this back to theories about consciousness and such, believing in a theory is fine, because until it is disproved, or another is proven, it is no more or no less valid than any other theory.
But if people try to persuade others that a theory is proven, is fact without basing that on any evidence, then that is not right.

So you now really start saying, that the theory of a spirit/dualism has an equal standing to all of science?
You said - less likely - but maybe this needs more clarification.


Questions for those who feel addressed by them - not you in any special way (or not you at all?)

Why believe in the spirit, despite the glaring holes in theory, and having to show for itself only minimal and doubtful and not practically applicable data in any useful and culturally meaningful way?

While it is as easy as cake to attribute this theory of the spirit to an evolutionary pre-set bias - to help us deal with our greatest fear - that of the inevitably to be expected extinction of the "I"??

Does this really have same value than hundreds of years of science to you?

Science that added on and expanded and went in deeper into understanding of the material theory of brain-function.
And more and more finding, where and how all these marvellous phenomena come to pass in actuality in our physical brain.

Initially - brain science was done from that dualistic viewpoint, the only one, that seemed intuitively understandable, and the one fostered by organised religion.
That the brain is only a mere receptor for the spirit, which would be the entity with the real complexity.
The brain just another piece of functioning meat like the liver.
Not the most complex structure in the universe known to man, as we now know it is.

Only with more insight - better technical devices to watch the brain at work - only recently, actually, are neuro-scientists really getting down to this functionality understanding - and more and more Dualism will be vanishing from the mainstream.

But neuroscience - and all of science did not and does not jump about wildly between experts and not even over time, mostly - it is often re-adjusted and re-directed and corrected - but it is really a constantly fought out consensus - something organically grown.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

ANYWAY

I've rambled a bit but I believe that because there is no evidence really for the consciousness theories floating about, the arguments surrounding it are infinitely more interesting. Anyone one of you and your theories could be correct, we just don't know it yet. Certainly, through current knowledge some theories are a lot more likely to be true than others, but again the entire discussion around these theories is fascinating.

Yes - found you back - more likely!!
More likely indeed - thank you for giving me fodder for my own ramblings here - was a pleasure!

Originally Posted by BlairBros

Sorry for the wall of text, and if I made any glaring errors or confused you, but I just wanted to share my opinion that anyone can believe what they want about the consciousness, because as of yet there's no evidence to stop them.

I personally believe however that the spirit, consciousness, who we are is integrally tied to our body, our body mind and spirit as I see it are one. I don't see how something as complex as our minds could somehow come from an external source, then be filtered through our brains and into our bodies, when the brain seems to be designed for being our mind, if that makes sense. Its hard to explain, but anyway I've talked enough

Interesting points in there - and - I do agree with you - well - no surprise there of course!
Funny you excuse yourself for wall of text/rambling etc. in here!! Don´t you worry - look at me for excess!


But I actually think, I have now said everything - and in repetition, which I have on board for now - maybe back with something newly found or on the video - but - got a bit of living to do now as well ..

Originally Posted by StephL

Well - that would be something wondrous and most fascinating and also exotic indeed!
Just why does nobody from beyond really communicate with us on a regular basis ..?

Yes, there is that nagging question isn't there?

That stark fact -- that there is no regular evidence (plenty of anecdotal, of course, as for instance most of the world both believes in ghosts and think they've seen one at least once) of communication with the "after-lifers" -- is indeed a troubling one for the "things only get better after death" crowd.

My own (albeit purely creative, evidence-free) response to this question has varied over the years, as I toy with new ideas. These days I tend toward the thought that "given" there is so much more to experience and explore in a life as an energy being, and that their new state is so different than their old physical state, after-lifers may simply have no interest in their former lives. Perhaps, also, our understanding of visceral things like family, love, devotion, loyalty, etc, might simply be quite different after death... things that matter now might not matter so much, later (cue the umbrage-laden "damn, that's cold, Sageous; I would never be that way, or even want to be that way!" responses...).

Here is something a tiny bit less selfish: Being eternal beings, the wait for their loved ones to join the after-lifers would amount to an eye-blink, so why go to the trouble of bothering the living while they're still alive?

There are lots of other possibilities as well; perhaps things as simple as the idea that these beings are always around us, and are indeed always visiting us, but, barring occasional bouts of paranormal activity, physical communication is impossible. Who knows? Maybe God simply does not allow it, because it messes up His long game ! But any explanation is of course little more than frivolous imaginings.

It could be anything. For now, the question of why we don't hear from them holds far more sway than its many, many answers... especially among scientists.