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

**StephL** · 11-25-2013 04:02 AM

Hm, hm - part is from before meanwhile yesterday part I typed in between other things - much too much - but - I do not force anybody to read it, nor do I demand answers - even if I ask directly.
So take it or leave it - I might do some editing because of repeating myself - but before it grows longer - I throw it out - everybody distil or ignore or whatever it..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

... But there is many strange things happening in the world, where things get kind of unexplainable(depending on ones own debunking). And there is were the spiruality takes it place. At least this is the case for my own believes as it looks like today.

Far from all strange events needs to be some paranormal explanation. For example: If there is noises from the attic when your home alone. There is a good possibility that there is rats who running around there and makes small and sometimes heavy things fall if those things havn't been placed steady. And there is of course many many more examples like this.

But I would like some thought's on this story that Im going to explain here, if there could be some good possibilities to a natural cause for it. This was a case with a mother and her teenage daughter who had some crazy things going on in their house. So they wanted to get rid of this "ghost" or what you like to call it. Things that they had experienced in the house was that they had seen a shadow figure of a man. They had heard a mans voice talking. And the most wierd experience they [B]both saw at the same time[/U]. When they where in the livingroom, and the remotecontroll to the tv goes up in the air and stops in the air and starts spining at it's spot for a couple of seconds, before it shots down under the sofa in a high speed. This is things that at least I dont get any good answer to. And that's what make me curious about if there might be something like a spirit or if the world we live in works in a way that we dont think it does.

How come you believe, that this story is true?
Where have you got it from?
Has something paranormal been happening to you personally?

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

.For everyone who might like to have your self a mindfuck or just some good food for tought(It sure is "al dente"

). Here is some very interesting view from the always interesting, Alan Watts. Alan Watts Am I Free Or Just A Puppet - YouTube enjoy!

Thank you for this video - and it fits very well - it might generate new thoughts all around.
Good that maybe we don´t have to go into the NDE one, or do we..?

I want to take up several points of Alan Watts here.
He spends the first almost 20 min. with laying open and putting forth the way the "desert religions" go about explaining reality.
And I agree to this more or less all - similar to Pat Condell´s line of thinking.
Judaism, Christianity and Islam have what he calls the "clay model" - everything having to be put together, created by a divine being - and the goal among others to find out about why.
The goal religion transfers happily on science, is the how it is put together, how does it work etc.

Spirituality is also psychologically deeply grounded - we are exposed to this view-point by society at large - even if just by using this sort of language, which makes sense historically, of course.
Many, incl. myself were indoctrinated by or had at least to take part in active practice of a religion while our most sensitive phase of coming to terms with the world and reality - our childhood.

He does not like the view of the big three, and the scientific "mechanistic" view neither.
And to demonstrate why, he comes up with a scenario, from which in general springs forth one more source of the strong desire to believe in the spiritual.

The first one, I did repeatedly mention, being the one of wanting the comfort, such an idea with built in immortality and the promise of a better life after death, does provide for everybody - and within easiest reach.
You just got to believe in it.

What he puts forth is the fact that we all have a distinct subjective experience of there being something inherently opposed to the material realm.

Because it is our inner realm - it is "we", which we can not experience in the usual physical sense - we can not see or touch it ever - it is a fleeting pattern in matter - and so many people can not imagine, matter to be able to bring such a phenomenon forth.
Many beyonders love the notion of energy and waves and resonance - hell yes - we do have that - the brain-cells do work this way.

But sorry - we are mortal. Period.
Unless we do the transcending of the body ourselves - like transfer into another medium/bioconstruct .. science fiction.

He asks - in a bit less words - when you meet somebody - do you stand in front of a human being with thoughts and feelings and you communicate with a person there - or are you just talking to a profane mechanistic automaton? What do you think, intuitively?

In the sense, and close, if not the very words he used..

Aye... there's a rub.
The problem with the wish to believe in a completely free will.

"Mere automaton" and "a person with thoughts, feelings, ideas and ..as antithesis goes in that direction.

We have a hard time accepting that one thing follows the other in full physical reality - the usual way, after the usual laws..

But there is no problem with "the person" being a physical phenomenon.
The mind being an epiphenomenon, which has evolved - one more function - a separation of this point of view, so as that we, for example, have the possibility "to do as if" - something we do not ascribe to animals.

Nobody serious would claim that it has "sprung forth by mere accident and by blind chance with throwing about chemistry randomly".
This is rhetoric to make it "sound" so ridiculous - so intuitively inherently wrong as an explanation to the dualists.

But - I will have to do a feature on the evolution of consciousness and pertaining research in the animal world, to really argue the case, why the mind can of course be a product of biological evolution.
And I can not imagine it any adequate to see this as an accident in the sense of a direction taken "by mistake".

Ultimately by the chance, which fuels evolution on the lowest basis of mutations - yes - always.
But not in any "wrong" or "bad" way - I do not think, it is something to be reverted, because it is less fit than the animals are.

I mean - time will tell - if all intelligent races eradicate themselves sooner or later - that at least would explain, why we do not have interstellar intelligent discourse.

Actually - it sadly might be even true - and this "might" is much, much closer than any "mights" up to now conceded in this thread.

My repeatedly mentioned Wolf Singer has partaken in a fantastic book on the evolution of consciousness and mind in animals besides humans.
But later - I even think, the book can be gotten for free - not sure there, though.
This will take some work.

But I feel, so often the very theory of evolution is not properly understood.
But sure and clear as daylight - mine needs a right good polish too - I am not an evolution-concerned biologist after all.

But let me just say: Millions of years - and that is really a lot of time, and it is not that every being evolved on it´s own and came up with all it´s aspects at once at random.
That is not how it works - it is cumulative!

...

..to be continued - Alan Watts then goes into eastern philosophical/religious traditions next - whole other kettle on his stove, it sounds..

Originally Posted by Sageous

.. I must note again that I was not saying that there is a tangibly existent spiritual world (now there's an oxymoron!)
That more I kept repeating up there was a sense, a feeling, deeply embedded in our psyches, based firmly on our imaginations, our fear of death, our anecdotal experiences, and an archetypical insertion of a sense of or need formore into the very fabric of our beings for uncounted generations.

Exactly - that is for example something, I will try to think about a bit more, in conjunction with Alan Watts.

Same here - and I have argued with his help above a bit - only the half of it, though, the first half.

That more might not exist; it may never have existed, and may never exist; but the sense of it is practically universal. That's what I was saying, and not that there is a literal spiritual world. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Thank you - no - that was not clear to me, which can very easily be a problem at my end, too.
As I said above to the video - that is that second aspect - it looks so from within, because a brain can not look at itself and observe it´s thinking in a way, that seems physical and direct at the same time.

I was speaking in generalities, of course, and don't dare suggest that I know what is in your specific head.

That is a sentence, I do not understand.
Do you mean: "Do not dare Steph..", or do you mean "I, Sageous, don´t dare to"?
If the first - I did not want to suggest, that you made a point of this for everybody now being an evident conclusion - you did of course not dare to state, you would know about the inside view of my mind.
So I need not dare getting at something like that, which I do not perceive in the first place.

Lost in translation is sort of to be taken more seriously with different mother tongues and in an area, where words and expressions slide and merge and overlap - but then again don´t - not easy.

There are exceptions to every rule, and you certainly might not have any sense of that more, that spirituality, in your head. However, after reading so many of your posts and knowing your interest in something as unplugged from scientific reality as dreaming and lucid dreaming, I would bet that you've got more spiritual stuff swirling around in you than you might currently think. That is not a bad thing, and doesn't imply things like "crazy" or "naive" at all, either ... it just says that you too might want there to be more. Again, I could be wrong, but I felt it worth taking a moment to pay you the compliment.

Well - I do know and sense exactly what you are talking about.
Just I see no need whatsoever to invoke the spirit - why not merge your mind- with your spirit-concept?
I share with you all your notions about the spirit just like you say and just as we all experience it.
But the spirit then is my "I" in my mind - all is mind - and this mind resides in the brain.

Why is that not enough?
I don´t get it.
There is one and only one reason - because it is mortal, and that would lead humankind into suicidal, extinction, maybe.
So - it is evolutionarily making sense, to make humans prone to "spiritual thinking" and direct religion, too.

There is a brain-region in the temporal lobes - it can be stimulated and the persons report experiences of the "spiritual sort".
Around the same area that lights up with nuns praying/monks meditating in MRIs, if I remember correctly.

This I have to bring in here with sources - later.

Okay, and I agree. I think I already had done that, several times, but I'll do it again: In my opinion, dreams -- and all the other stuff that define and sustain our personalities, consciousness, and souls, for that matter -- are indeed processed in and by the brain.

However, in my opinion, that process is only the beginning, and it is worth considering that perhaps the stuff of our thoughts has a longer shelf-life and greater reach than just the distance of a few crossed synapses. I think I've been fairly consistent with this thought, and not just here. That also is why I asked that question about from where, then, do dreams come.

The whole concept could be abandoned, were it not for the wish to survive death and have magic powers.
And the question about there being a creator and final judge.

Again, the sense a spiritual world (of that more) is there, and not the spiritual world itself.
There is an enormous difference.
Where is it, that spiritual world? It is in your head, in your thoughts, in your dreams.

So - you say - there is a vague notion in humanity, that there should be something spiritual.
But as to the something as such - you say it is not there.

So it stands written there now, or do I misunderstand..?

Is it maybe rather - you do not say, that it is there (but it might be there anyway)?
That also is a difference.

It may exist elsewhere as well, in some form or another, but that is both not known and, from my perspective, unimportant relative to what I was trying to say.

I think it is important to the thread - and what is it, you want to say, where it does not play into heavily?
You say dreams come from the brain-mind for sure, and eventually from a spirit, too.

So - what else is the question, as the one - does the spiritual realm exist?
Like I said - if you pose up front it does - then dreams sure come also from it, intuitively - or are constructed for the entertainment of the spirit by the body over the mind as bridge - like in Naill´s unified theory..

Also, and I promise I'll say it for the last time, that "swirling about" of which I spoke was one of your own perceptions, your own imaginings, and your own hopes and dreams ("your," of course, being anyone's, and not specifically you).

I wasn't talking about some physical spiritual essence swirling physically in your mind, just as I wasn't talking about some physical scientific essence swirling about. I was also using the perspective of consciousness, and not the nuts-and-bolts of firing neurons and other organic brain activity. You probably already knew this, but I figured it would not hurt to make the distinction clear.

I know you didn´t mean that.
But I still do not see, what such a spirit would be good for - I mean - we need a really good faith in getting any evidence there - this is a mighty big "might".
Don´t you think, there needed to be a good reason to believe that this will happen, that there is something, and it will be shown - at least directly to you?
What is such an elusive entity as the spirit giving you, that a swinging network in your brain, going about it´s rhythms can´t bring about.
If you do say - the brain brings forth the mind - so thoughts - why not emotions, too? And dreams?

Like reality - in dreams a movie is shown to the "I" with the help of our world model - just when it is a LD - you are consciously the director - and not your subconsciousness* makes the world for you. *A perfectly valid concept in my eyes - not Freud in his entirety, though - other topic.

And I really like the expression "swirling about" - do not threaten us with withdrawal, please!

And yes - I have ideas and perceptions swirling about in my head and feelings, and I do think, that yes - these are physical, and they can swirl anyway.
A three-dimensional waveform - a pattern, which has inner resonances and very special networks and cells synchronising the "me" together - I find this wonderful, when I think about it.
There is the dualism - the waves - plus and minus - and it is in your head, and realised in the physical.

I'm going to dodge all these questions, considering that each would rate an entire book (or three) to answer, and a few words on a web post will only serve to muddle, not confirm, define, or enlighten. Were you just being rhetorical?

That said, here are some extremely brief direct responses to your questions, based on things I've already said here and elsewhere:

Thank you for answering me - no, I was not being rhetorical - these are in my opinion some of the very questions, in which´s way we are throwing our intellect in here.

* The mind is the accumulation of our thoughts, memories, and sentient activities (all our "I think, therefore I am" moments). It is essentially the mechanism of our selves, and it is certainly (in my opinion) originally sourced in brain activity --

Agreed.

but it might not be limited to brain activity; it may even have a potential to transcend that activity (oh, crap, there's that word -- please trust that I'm not just casually throwing it out there!

You are not casually throwing "transcend" about - you are using for grasping/getting at your very central assertion.
Namely that there might be something, which matter can not provide - the spirit.
And that it would be worth to spend your life on getting clarification there.

Do you say, the mind is initially purely physical as in evolution did throw it up?
Do animals have a mind?
And - lets say we do, for sure - then how did the mind come to the spirit?
Did it evolve it - then it´s physical - we can stop discussing and adapting in terms of - well - terms, a brain-mind-spirit merger.
If it came from outside - where from, from whom and why?

* The spirit is the result of all that accumulation, the non-physical essence of the personalities that we have spent our lifetimes assembling. It is the framework of our identity, and personality. In a sense, spirit is the "sum of the parts" of brain activity, memory, consciousness, dreams.

Agreed and candidate for the merger I propose - I do have and experience such a spirit - in this spirit - I am with you.

There may be more to spirit, perhaps something truly physical (like that thought energy I think I posited about earlier).

All living takes place within classical physics - biology does all overall - the classic physics - how can evolving brains suddenly come to suck the most exotic and occult energies from the physical realm?
Energies no other observation shows than insight.
How did the brains find that - they are not having anything that special in comparison to animal brains as to be a candidate?

Yes, there may be, and I for one hope there is (and work every day towards discovering there is),

Maybe that means, that by now there is a reluctance being there, to throw all that big endeavour over board.

but for now it exists only as the stuff of our consciousness. However, as that stuff, it must be a participant in the production of dreams -- which is why I said that spirit ought to be included in the formula for dream production.

I oppose the view that the mind is of stuff. The mind resides in the stuff.
The mind is a construct - an emergence of the complexities of communication within it.

* How do they exchange information? Dreams themselves may be the answer to that question, but it is likely far more complicated in process -- though probably quite simple in definition:

They are not "exchanging" information at all! Your personality, the "You" in all this, encompasses everything that is going on in you, be it mind brain activity, dreams, spiritual meanderings, whatever. Communication in essence does not exist, because all parts are always in contact with all the other parts. This includes communications between the unconscious and conscious minds as well, though I do lapse occasionally into separating them into two separate places (I shouldn't do that, but 50 years of Western input have pretty much conditioned me to doing so).

So why two entities in the first place?

* Finally, the brain comes in as the progenitor to it all, the center for our entire lives of perception, cognition, memory, personality, and interaction with reality. What happens after our lives end, or after we discover and harness that currently fantasized thought energy, is anyone's guess, but suffice it to say that the brain is the keystone to our existence for as long as we are alive.

The progenitor - yes.
But how can it bring something forth, which survives it´s own decay.
The human brain is the most complex structure known to man in the whole universe.
If it was needed, to bring forth the mind, why on earth can it be, that the spirit can survive without it?
Something a bit more complex than the mind - but something it brought forth (progenitor) in which way you imagine this, I am not yet sure - hence the above question about it.

Again, entire books can be written in answer to each of these questions, so be assured that all the answers are profoundly incomplete and extremely arguable, for lack of many, many pages of clarifications.

Sageous - you said, what you think to my questions. I really, really appreciate that a lot!
It makes it much easier for me to understand you - and my reactions might help you understand me.
Or we misunderstand us - notice it and get it sorted the second time around - if it helps the "Wahrheitsfindung" ("finding of truth" is not exactly as nice - but sorry..).
If a bit of a provocation is mixed in - do not take it personal - take it as a provocation to think and react - something I also find of worth - not everybody shares my enthusiasm there, but well.

I was going to simply delete this question and hope it got forgotten, but what the hell? I'm here.
I think the dualistic system, as much as there is one, is an invention of convenience that helps us make sense of reality.

Fully agreed.

I don't think it has to do anything here, because dreams are literally a non-dualistic event (everything in a dream is "You," there is no outside influence, no need for an observer/observed interchange). Indeed, dualism tends to damage dreaming, both because it tends to apply (often very incorrect) meanings or explanations to what happened long after the dream occurred, and also because the potentials of lucid dreams are diminished when we observe them during the dream with a dualistic attitude.
And, again, books can and have been written about dualism, so this answer is certainly not nearly enough.

I think it does. Dualism here, is exactly about the question, if there is a spirit separate and not reliant on the body/mind-brain.
And no - dreams are as much as they are pure consciousness, freed in its agency from the force of reality coming in through the senses and also the brain goes into very special waves - very, very synchronous activity - characteristics not there, when the "real world is switched back on" and we are awake.

That is the same mind, I always have, which I have when I LD - it is creating it´s own inner virtual reality - impregnable by any outside influences like other entities - and good grief - I am happy about that (one day there might be technology, though..)!!
And this exact virtual reality is realised by my brain-function.
On top of the sleep-waves and on the classical regions associated with dreams - more areas - areas concerned with meta-consciousness and the I"" as agent.

Okay, I'm out of time, Steph -- I had honestly hoped that my one-line comment to Nailler said it all -- apparently not!

I certainly hope I was more clear this time...

It certainly was - thank you once more!
And do not feel pressure to answer - just questions - not attacks.

Originally Posted by Nailler

“If you want to converse with me, first define your terms.” Somebody famous said that, but I forgot who. So...

Consider the spirit to be the person himself... the personality... a source of creation... the "I."

The body is... well the body... meat, bones, nerves, organs chemical/electrical activity etc.

The mind is the interface between the spirit and the body. The mind is not the brain, but is a bridge between the brain and the spirit.

I like that saying - great - thanks for answering!

Seeing the beauty of the flower...

A light pattern corresponding to the flower impinges on the back of the retina. This causes an electrical pattern in part of the brain. That pattern is not evidence that the brain sees or is aware of anything. It's simply an electrical pattern. On a stimulus response basis, the brain may trigger the release of chemicals that effect mood or behavior, but that is not evidence of cognizance or awareness. For example, pattern corresponding to a rattlesnake="fight or flight" reflex.

The spirit or "I" becomes aware of that pattern via the mind. At the same time it becomes aware of the patterns generated by the other senses. This is the only point in the process where anything or anyone is truly aware. The spirit assigns form to the pattern by creating an image in the mind. The mind assigns meaning to the image... it's a flower... and further assigns qualities to it. It's red, it's beautiful, etc., and perhaps draws conclusions... "It must be spring" "flowers are a good thing" or whatever.

The meaning and qualities assigned to the pattern vary depending upon the personality and mood of the "I." This is why one person might see the flower as beautiful, while another might see the same flower as humdrum, or not recognise any beauty in it at all. It's also why one might see something insightful in a message board post, whilst another may not.

This is not "Niall's Original Unified Theory of Mind, Body, and Soul." In one form or another this was at one time the common view of human existence.

Oh - but it is Niall`s very own and actually wonderful way of putting it!
I was close to do arguing the case for Dualism, as a turning of the table "experiment" myself.

As mankind made enormous strides in the physical sciences, it got a swelled head and lost sight of the mind and soul. In fact the original definition of psychology was the study of the soul... which included it's interactions with the mind and body.

What I think of, when I say mind, is not a mere interface to the body, but the entity as such - see above.
But the characteristic of the spirit is one thing:

It is supposedly immortal, and not dependant on the brain.
But why then, are our brains the most complex living structure we know of - how can it all be just for the "interface" to the spirit?

All that complexity and over evolution more and more - and we are compared to animals an explosion of brain-size, different configurations and connections.
What is that all needed for? Just interface? Why does the spirit seemingly suffer with dementia? Or after head-trauma (among others) there are personality changes as results, and not in few cases and at times severe.
And if the mind alone - less high-fi than the spirit - needs all that stuff and energy - how come the spirit doesn´t?

Now to address the original question about where dreams come from...
Dreams are the body's way (via the mind) of keeping the spirit occupied while it completes its restorative sleep process.

In essence the body, via the mind, sets up a sort of playground of past images, perceptions, and sensations which play out through the same spirit-mind-body communication channels as real life. That's why the brain activity during dreams is similar to the brain activity in waking life.

In lucid dreaming, for its own amusement, the spirit triggers the mind to create "new" perceptions which are usually the recombining of previous perceptions, but could be entirely new and original.

So dreams are triggered by the spirit, but consist of past perceptions rekindled in the mind/body interface. The brain produces nothing on its own and is aware of nothing other than on a stimulus response basis.

This is my own theory... "Niall's Uniform Theory of Brainless Dreams."

Later,
N.

Yepp - your brainless dreams theory and classical dualism, do make sense with each other - but then, but then - there is this question nagging:

I have to justify before my very own rationality, that there is not only culturally encouraged wishful thinking going on, when I want to be a dualist.
Why should I reject this highly likely scenario?

Maybe really only because of wanting to be immortal - first and foremost the motivation to believe in the spirit.
Intimately entwined is a divine source usually - so one better had an idea to theological questions.

I think, evolution has put us in a mental clarity position, where we need a "transcendence-center" in our minds, to be so very open for this delusion - why?
See temporal lobes stuff I hinted at - this will be coming - I´ll do my best.
To not kill ourselves - esp. if we live in dire conditions.

In essence, mankind lost it's mind and soul and it became all about chemicals.
Curiously, in present time science is slowly catching up with itself as studies discredit the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental illness. But that's a topic for another day.

Looking forward to that day - and you are correct in a way - but it is not in the sense of leaving the "theory of brain-chemistry" - it is more, that more is found out, how information is processed - incl. from modifications at the DNA reading sources, etc..

Originally Posted by Tradl3s

Let me try to answer this question in the most basic manner. Our brain is the basis of everything we do, choose to do, think, visualize, even every movement you make requires your brain to be working. So what other part of the body could possibly hold the capability to dream? Exactly. Nothing else. Just your brain.
Besides, without our brain we wouldn't even be capable of movement, thought, or use of the five senses. No other part of the body is capable of controlling all of those factors.

Exactly!

**Sageous** · 11-25-2013 07:21 AM

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...

Originally Posted by StephL

I was speaking in generalities, of course, and don't dare suggest that I know what is in your specific head.

That is a sentence, I do not understand.
Do you mean: "Do not dare Steph..", or do you mean "I, Sageous, don´t dare to"?

I meant "I, Sageous, don´t dare to," because I cannot see into your mind, and have no right to presume to do so.

Just I see no need whatsoever to invoke the spirit - why not merge your mind- with your spirit-concept?

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.

But the spirit then is my "I" in my mind - all is mind - and this mind resides in the brain.
Why is that not enough? I don´t get it.

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!

There is one and only one reason - because it is mortal, and that would lead humankind into suicidal, extinction, maybe.
So - it is evolutionarily making sense, to make humans prone to "spiritual thinking" and direct religion, too...The whole concept could be abandoned, were it not for the wish to survive death and have magic powers. And the question about there being a creator and final judge.

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.

So - you say - there is a vague notion in humanity, that there should be something spiritual.
But as to the something as such - you say it is not there.

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).

So it stands written there now, or do I misunderstand..?

Is it maybe rather - you do not say, that it is there (but it might be there anyway)?
That also is a difference.

My turn not to understand; you lost me there, Steph!

I said: It may exist elsewhere as well, in some form or another, but that is both not known and, from my perspective, unimportant relative to what I was trying to say.

I think it is important to the thread - and what is it, you want to say, where it does not play into heavily?
You say dreams come from the brain-mind for sure, and eventually from a spirit, too.

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.

So - what else is the question, as the one - does the spiritual realm exist?
Like I said - if you pose up front it does - then dreams sure come also from it, intuitively - or are constructed for the entertainment of the spirit by the body over the mind as bridge - like in Naill´s unified theory..

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.

But I still do not see, what such a spirit would be good for - I mean - we need a really good faith in getting any evidence there - this is a mighty big "might".

Mighty big indeed!

Don´t you think, there needed to be a good reason to believe that this will happen, that there is something, and it will be shown - at least directly to you?

Not necessarily.

What is such an elusive entity as the spirit giving you, that a swinging network in your brain, going about it´s rhythms can´t bring about.

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?

If you do say - the brain brings forth the mind - so thoughts - why not emotions, too? And dreams?

Okay.

And I really like the expression "swirling about" - do not threaten us with withdrawal, please!

And yes - I have ideas and perceptions swirling about in my head and feelings, and I do think, that yes - these are physical, and they can swirl anyway.
A three-dimensional waveform - a pattern, which has inner resonances and very special networks and cells synchronising the "me" together - I find this wonderful, when I think about it.

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.

Do you say, the mind is initially purely physical as in evolution did throw it up?

Yes.

Do animals have a mind?

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).

And - lets say we do, for sure - then how did the mind come to the spirit?
Did it evolve it - then it´s physical - we can stop discussing and adapting in terms of - well - terms, a brain-mind-spirit merger.
If it came from outside - where from, from whom and why?

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.

All living takes place within classical physics - biology does all overall - the classic physics - how can evolving brains suddenly come to suck the most exotic and occult energies from the physical realm?

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

How did the brains find that - they are not having anything that special in comparison to animal brains as to be a candidate?

I'm not sure I understand that, but I can't help but respond by saying human brains can say "I think, therefore I am," while animal brains cannot.

Yes, there may be, and I for one hope there is (and work every day towards discovering there is),

Maybe that means, that by now there is a reluctance being there, to throw all that big endeavor overboard.

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.

So why two entities in the first place?

Not a clue! Ask Descartes?

The progenitor - yes.
But how can it bring something forth, which survives it´s own decay.
The human brain is the most complex structure known to man in the whole universe.
If it was needed, to bring forth the mind, why on earth can it be, that the spirit can survive without it?
Something a bit more complex than the mind - but something it brought forth (progenitor) in which way you imagine this, I am not yet sure - hence the above question about it.

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?

Sageous - you said, what you think to my questions. I really, really appreciate that a lot!
It makes it much easier for me to understand you - and my reactions might help you understand me.
Or we misunderstand us - notice it and get it sorted the second time around - if it helps the "Wahrheitsfindung" ("finding of truth" is not exactly as nice - but sorry..).
If a bit of a provocation is mixed in - do not take it personal - take it as a provocation to think and react - something I also find of worth - not everybody shares my enthusiasm there, but well.

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!

**BlairBros** · 11-25-2013 10:12 AM

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

**dutchraptor** · 11-25-2013 06:49 PM

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.

**BlairBros** · 11-25-2013 08:13 PM

^^^^^
Thats basically what I was trying to get at, but you put it much more straightforwardly and eloquently than I did

**StephL** · 11-25-2013 09:20 PM

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 ..

**Sageous** · 11-25-2013 10:42 PM

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.

**BlairBros** · 11-26-2013 02:41 AM

Thank you Steph for your extremely detailed and long response

I agree with you completely that things proven by science and maths over hundreds of years should definitely be treated as truth, without a doubt, but I was saying before that all of these things could still be false, but yeah thinking that absolutely everything could be false hurts my head too much, and is a silly way of thinking anyway.

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 definitely consider the second answer as much more likely, and that was part of the point I was trying to make, except I now realize that I actually forgot to say that in my previous post, which may be why it is a bit confusing. Even though no theories are more or less valid in the sense that none of them have concrete evidence, I definitely take the word of objective scientists who have been researching for hundreds of years more than some random person's experiences.

The colourblind example wasn't a very good one, but thank you for totally analysing it and explaining why it was wrong. With a situation like that where others can definitively prove that red is a colour, through its wavelengths and such, to the colourblind person, then they will accept that because of the evidence. Perhaps a better example might be if someone thought there was a person talking to them who wasn't actually there, from dementia or something similar. People might tell that person that the person they are talking to isn't real, or that it is all in their heads, but the person with dementia could refuse to believe that, thinking that they are right because they have experienced talking to the person, so it must be real. Sure, the scientists could try to prove that the person with dementia is wrong, explaining that it is impossible, trying to use evidence(eg. "There can't be someone there, we just walked straight through them), etc. BUT, the person could ignore that because there isn't 100% concrete, definite evidence that proves that they are wrong. Even though everyone else in the world, science and common sense says they are wrong, they still believe they are right. This kind of reasoning I believe is used by people such as the original poster of the thread and others like him, because they ignore what other people say and believe their own experiences, even though everyone else disagrees with them and the chance that they are right is minuscule, say 0.001%.

So in conclusion, answer B is definitely right for me, because it all boils down to probability. Are you going to believe something that only one person believes, with no evidence to back them up, or what 1 billion people believe who have researched the matter for all their lives, even if they don't have concrete evidence? Exactly

Even though person A could be right, the chance that B is right is far, far larger.

(cue the umbrage-laden "damn, that's cold, Sageous; I would never be that way, or even want to be that way!" responses...).

That is pretty cold

, but I see where you are coming from and its entirely possible. I mean, if you suddenly became of being of energy, which could do whatever you liked, sort of like being in a lucid dream, you wouldn't really be interested in their former lives. Its kind of like how if you are able to have lucid dreams whenever you want instead of normal dreams, would you choose to have normal dreams? Probably not (although since I can't do that I am just assuming that people such as that wouldn't really want to have non lucid dreams most of the time).

**Darkmatters** · 11-26-2013 06:35 AM

Steph, just wanted to pop in and say you're amazing!! Fighting the good fight single-handed and with such energy and determination, and taking the time to explain every idea so thoroughly. It's like having Carl Sagan here!!

**StephL** · 11-26-2013 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sageous

Originally Posted by StephL

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.

Yes - I would imagine - if there is the possibility from both sides and the wish, too - from our side there definitively always was - then by now, our cultures all over the world - actually since ages, rather - would have established - well - a culture of it.
An art form - a technique - professionals on a large basis.

Originally Posted by Sageous

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...).

Well - if I were to survive death - and then empathy and personal "human" feelings would not be of any meaning to me any more - would "I" still be me?
If it were so - especially the attributes that classically are ascribed to the spirit, while we are alive, would then have stayed behind.
They then would have resided in the mind-brain after all.

Would there be a consciousness in our sense then? With compassion?
I think, the interest loss does throw up other questions.

Originally Posted by Sageous

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.

I have thrown "blink of an eye" together with impossible, because there could be a direct connection.
It could indeed be an effect of time being experienced differently - them being too slow or too fast for communication with us.
If I were creative now - I could suggest arrangements like in "The Algebraist" by Ian M. Banks for communicating with too fast/slow aliens.

Originally Posted by Sageous

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.

Yes - holds more sway for me as well.
And the "God" scenario - only under very elaborate restraints - like somebody creating us on his hard-drive, what ever hard drive that would be.
Hence - agnostic.
Buut - I am very much drawn to art about and around the very borders of experience and knowledge and technology and very surprising findings out.
This is a phantastisch playing field for the mind.

Frivolous imaginings are a mighty fine and fun thing to do - my personal taste does drive me into the science-fiction genre.

There you have everything - even you can construct scenarios, where in a bizarre but followable way suddenly it is discovered, that one of the desert-religions was "right" all along - just - like every way of understanding "right" only in bits and parts (yet).
Having a lot of unknown background to it - and surprising wells, from which to have sprung, ultimately.

It is a long time ago, and I am not entirely sure on it - but if or if not it is such a scenario - I can recommend "The Android´s Dream" by John Scalzi - very funny and with aliens - this being important to me (I take them in serious and without aliens as well, though..)..

I do not like the "mythical genre" in fantasy a lot - such things are mostly not in the form of prosa anyway - while there is fantasy, which is very unusual, funny as well at times and full of insights.
And there of course is Terry Pratchett!

Now that was going far off topic - but astralboy does not want to play any more, it seems - or??

Originally Posted by BlairBros

Thank you Steph for your extremely detailed and long response

I agree with you completely that things proven by science and maths over hundreds of years should definitely be treated as truth, without a doubt, but I was saying before that all of these things could still be false, but yeah thinking that absolutely everything could be false hurts my head too much, and is a silly way of thinking anyway.

I definitely consider the second answer as much more likely, and that was part of the point I was trying to make, except I now realize that I actually forgot to say that in my previous post, which may be why it is a bit confusing. Even though no theories are more or less valid in the sense that none of them have concrete evidence, I definitely take the word of objective scientists who have been researching for hundreds of years more than some random person's experiences.

..

So in conclusion, answer B is definitely right for me, because it all boils down to probability. Are you going to believe something that only one person believes, with no evidence to back them up, or what 1 billion people believe who have researched the matter for all their lives, even if they don't have concrete evidence? Exactly

Even though person A could be right, the chance that B is right is far, far larger.

Ah - so I did understand you correctly all along.
I was going into it like that with the probabilities on the assumption, also somebody else might feel addressed.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

The colourblind example wasn't a very good one, but thank you for totally analysing it and explaining why it was wrong. With a situation like that where others can definitively prove that red is a colour, through its wavelengths and such, to the colourblind person, then they will accept that because of the evidence.

Perhaps a better example might be if someone thought there was a person talking to them who wasn't actually there, from dementia or something similar.

People might tell that person that the person they are talking to isn't real, or that it is all in their heads, but the person with dementia could refuse to believe that, thinking that they are right because they have experienced talking to the person, so it must be real.

Sure, the scientists could try to prove that the person with dementia is wrong, explaining that it is impossible, trying to use evidence(eg. "There can't be someone there, we just walked straight through them), etc. BUT, the person could ignore that because there isn't 100% concrete, definite evidence that proves that they are wrong.

Even though everyone else in the world, science and common sense says they are wrong, they still believe they are right. This kind of reasoning I believe is used by people such as the original poster of the thread and others like him, because they ignore what other people say and believe their own experiences, even though everyone else disagrees with them and the chance that they are right is minuscule, say 0.001%.

Exactly.
It is a good example, you bring - but it puts behind such a belief not only one, but two possible sources - each of them alone, being able to delude a person.

Namely - a mental disorder - or a personal experience of direct and important meaning.
Both can open the door for people - in our scenario - to finally be assured - or make themselves feel assured - that there is a life after death.
That seemingly being the biggest motive drive for - well - maybe I call it cheekily large-scale and organised delusions?

If such an experience can be brought in a causal relation to a sort of "mental dysfunction", which is not a permanent, or even worsening form like dementia - it could also be assessed in a rational manner after the acute occurrence - given the ability to rational insight is restored.

But only if the person is willing and prepared to do so psychologically.

If you go into such an thing, with - for example the expectation, that you will get real insight into how the universe works by eating mushrooms - not a chance to go at you with chemical formulas and talk of receptors.

I mean "transient condition" the sense of an acute state of biological dys-balance in the brain - chemically induced from uptake of something or other - or being in an acute phase of psychosis, which later subsides, fasting or, or ..

But then there is the dream-state.
We do know, it is a special biological state as well, and lucidity is another special biological pattern-configuration in the brain yet.
That is why one can discern the onset of an LD in a functional magnet-resonance-tomography.

So - this is something special in the brain.

Then there is the WILD to go into LD, which I did not yet manage.
But as I understand, what I read - this can be made to be experienced as if a "soul" would leave the physical body.
Seems it is not so easy to make a dreamscape with your own body in it - or most people would not be interested, either - but if you are interested, and able, then you can experience something that is from the point of how it looks and feels "astral projection".
I have also read theosophic stuff - so and surely you can also dream together this famous cord, if you deeply expect it.
And if then you expect to meet astral beings and guides and dead people to converse with - there you feel you have your subjective 100% proof.

Same goes for dream-sharing in my view.

And like it seems with astralboy - that seems to validate to forget about all other human knowledge and the body of experiences of others. No need - I was there - I now know it all.
You can tell me about neuro-transmitters, receptors, action-potentials and electricity being conducted as long as you wish.
You can show me brain-networks lighting up in concert and in resonances and waves of a special sort - does not matter.
Hm.

Originally Posted by BlairBros

That is pretty cold

, but I see where you are coming from and its entirely possible. I mean, if you suddenly became of being of energy, which could do whatever you liked, sort of like being in a lucid dream, you wouldn't really be interested in their former lives. Its kind of like how if you are able to have lucid dreams whenever you want instead of normal dreams, would you choose to have normal dreams? Probably not (although since I can't do that I am just assuming that people such as that wouldn't really want to have non lucid dreams most of the time).

I think, I want non-lucids, even when I hopefully will be very proficient in LD - for the fact, that they appear fully real.
And to not be consciously involved in directing the adventure.
But I hope, that there will might be something to kick in, if I start suffering in a non-lucid in too nasty a way.
That I do not have now - yet?

No - but I do care about waking life, when in LD.
Example - it was a big drive to do the TOTM for going on here and posting it and get these wiings and be childishly proud (all for the sake of behaviouristic technique..

).
I knew, why I was running around looking for people to ask, what they are thankful for.
Not because it was the story that I wanted to know - but for later.

And the more important thing, not my off-topicing - I think, if I were not interested in my now important fellow beings - I would in a way at least - not be "me" anymore.
Would I even care for having "survived death"?
If I were not social any more - would I even have contact with the other deceased?
Are we suddenly out of thin air so far advanced as to only be interested in each other?
What is there to be interested in?
I rather would go with not possible as with not interested, if I let myself be persuaded to "play do as if".

But that of course on the basis of not having any personal experiences with seem to me personally- to maybe belong into that realm, if there was one.

If I would like to include such an experience of mine into my spiritual world view - then the "is not possible" falls through the cracks - is not a tenable position any more.
Not consistent with bringing in my subjective anecdotes, if I had them.
So - disinterest would lend itself to me maybe a bit more readily in that case.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Steph, just wanted to pop in and say you're amazing!! Fighting the good fight single-handed and with such energy and determination, and taking the time to explain every idea so thoroughly. It's like having Carl Sagan here!!

Oooh..blush.gif

First of all - surely not single-handedly!!
It is not that I had a manuscript on my pc, with my view on human nature put down.
This is only possible because of this communication and thanks all - now I sort of do!

You made my day, Darkmatters - to be put in a sentence with Sagan - I might try to one day live up to that!
My husband has been asking, what I was on about here - and I told him - I go about The Old Question, try to express my view..
Shaking his head, he was.

**Nailler** · 11-26-2013 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by StephL

You can tell me about neuro-transmitters, receptors, action-potentials and electricity being conducted as long as you wish.
You can show me brain-networks lighting up in concert and in resonances and waves of a special sort - does not matter.
Hm.

Sorry I don't have the time to give this thread as much attention as you do, but cutting to the chase...

Astralboy is correct. Brain activity that we can see and measure does not matter.

The error you make is equating time coincidence with causation.

That all kinds of activity occurs in the brain when we dream is not evidence that dreams originate in the brain. Because it is consistent relationship, it's evidence that there is a connection of some kind between the two events, but that's about it. And that's all we can conclude... that there is a connection of some type.

Too date in this rather long thread, nobody has posted a definitive answer, backed up with evidence, to the question; "Where do dreams originate?"

"Subjective 100% proof" may be an oxymoron, but such "proof" is as valid... or invalid... as any other "proof" when it comes to questions relating to the nature of awareness and the true source of our dreams.

I vaguely recall something from an essay by William James (the father of modern psychology) to the effect that when investigating such things there's a line where science ends and religion begins, and science will never be able to cross that line. I suspect he was correct in that assertion.

N.

After a while, whenever the dogs would salivate, Pavlov had the strangest urge... to ring a bell.

**Sageous** · 11-26-2013 08:18 PM

Originally Posted by StephL

Yes - I would imagine - if there is the possibility from both sides and the wish, too - from our side there definitively always was - then by now, our cultures all over the world - actually since ages, rather - would have established - well - a culture of it. An art form - a technique - professionals on a large basis.

Haven't we, though?

Isn't religion itself really just a culture of and for communicating with life-after-death? Don't the Tibetans et al practice dream and sleep yoga with the intent of participating in the life-after-death transition? The practice of Shinto is still fairly prevalent in Japan, isn't it? Yes, once greedy, or, worse, righteous, humans get their hands on the tenets of religion and turn it all into Organized Religion the cultural part may collapse, but doesn't that basic core of innate belief in something more that inspires religion count as a universal sense of communication with the afterlife? Or at least an assumption of communication (what, after all, is prayer, if not that?)?

Forget religion; what about pop-culture itself? We seem constantly inundated with new (very popular) books, movies, and TV series centered on the assertion of life-after-death. Why would they be so popular, if we all didn't already have that sense of it built into our psyches?

I think we have all been communicating, even professionally, with at least the notion of more for a very long time -- probably since we lived in caves and trees. Yes that communication might be one-way and delusional, but that does not discount its presence.

Well - if I were to survive death - and then empathy and personal "human" feelings would not be of any meaning to me any more - would "I" still be me?

Good question. And here is another that is worth considering, I think: If you have become an ascended, energy being, capable of an existence that completely transcends your corporeal life, would it matter if you were no longer you? Does a butterfly mourn its former life as a caterpillar?

If it were so - especially the attributes that classically are ascribed to the spirit, while we are alive, would then have stayed behind. They then would have resided in the mind-brain after all.

Funny thing -- I have had a problem for most of my adult life (especially after a few years of advanced LD'ing) about the "classic" rationale for ascribing things like love, compassion, loyalty, honor, etc, to the spiritual side of existence. I've come to think the opposite, that all these things are simply our sentient amplifications of core, genetically-borne instincts. What is love, after all, beyond a drive to reproduce, and then protect those that we reproduced? What is compassion, beyond a need to maintain the integrity of the herd (or pack, as it were)? And so on. Yes, we've made much of them all, and their roles in our lifelong pursuit of joy is unquestionable ... but they are still genetically based -- we did not create love with our minds, or souls; rather, we interpreted the sensation of love that is part of our natural lives.

The point is, all these emotions may in fact only reside in the mind-brain, and could very well be let go of when their programmed purpose becomes moot. So, yeah, they would have stayed behind, and you as an ascended being might not miss them. (cue once more the umbrage-laden "damn, that's cold, Sageous; I would never be that way, or even want to be that way!" responses...)

Would there be a consciousness in our sense then? With compassion?

I think there would be a consciousness. I would like to think that compassion of some sort would endure, perhaps as an echo of our corporeal origins, and that it might help define us. But that may just be hormone-based wishful thinking.

I think, the interest loss does throw up other questions.

It does indeed. But I would think of it less as an "interest loss" than, perhaps an "interest shift."

I have thrown "blink of an eye" together with impossible, because there could be a direct connection.
It could indeed be an effect of time being experienced differently - them being too slow or too fast for communication with us.

Now there is an excellent rationale for why we're not communicating with the dead. Eternal beings could very well use time in a different manner than we mortals, and it might be that we all cannot get onto the same temporal page; except of course for the blurry near nonsense that those few ghosts or mediums who insist on trying do manage.

Buut - I am very much drawn to art about and around the very borders of experience and knowledge and technology and very surprising findings out.
This is a phantastisch playing field for the mind.

Yes it is. But the real thing to do here is wonder why this is so, I think!

Now that was going far off topic - but astralboy does not want to play any more, it seems - or??

I'm not sure if Astralboy is still with us (though I hope so), but I'm also not sure we've strayed so far from topic with this stuff -- after all, isn't it all ultimately the same thing?

**Nailler** · 11-26-2013 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Sageous

Isn't religion itself really just a culture of and for communicating with life-after-death?

My belief is that we are prevented from communicating with past lives or being aware of past existences because that would ruin the game of life. That is, it would substantially reduce the stakes and thereby lessen the game....like the difference between playing poker for big money and playing for toothpicks.

To put it another way the game changes from "when you're dead, you're dead, YOU LOSE!" To "ho-hum, you're dead... now you get to start a new game." Might as well stay home.

**StephL** · 11-26-2013 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Nailler

Sorry I don't have the time to give this thread as much attention as you do, but cutting to the chase...

Astralboy is correct. Brain activity that we can see and measure does not matter.

The error you make is equating time coincidence with causation.

That all kinds of activity occurs in the brain when we dream is not evidence that dreams originate in the brain. Because it is consistent relationship, it's evidence that there is a connection of some kind between the two events, but that's about it. And that's all we can conclude... that there is a connection of some type.

Too date in this rather long thread, nobody has posted a definitive answer, backed up with evidence, to the question; "Where do dreams originate?"

"Subjective 100% proof" may be an oxymoron, but such "proof" is as valid... or invalid... as any other "proof" when it comes to questions relating to the nature of awareness and the true source of our dreams.

I vaguely recall something from an essay by William James (the father of modern psychology) to the effect that when investigating such things there's a line where science ends and religion begins, and science will never be able to cross that line. I suspect he was correct in that assertion.

N.

After a while, whenever the dogs would salivate, Pavlov had the strangest urge... to ring a bell.

You refer to this, probably

Originally Posted by StephL

And like it seems with astralboy - that seems to validate to forget about all other human knowledge and the body of experiences of others. No need - I was there - I now know it all.
You can tell me about neuro-transmitters, receptors, action-potentials and electricity being conducted as long as you wish.
You can show me brain-networks lighting up in concert and in resonances and waves of a special sort - does not matter.
Hm.

"You can tell..."
What I say above is, that pointing towards all the correlations between brain-activity and the phenomena ascribed to a mind-spirit does not really work on the convinced.
Mainly does not work on the ones, convinced because of subjective experience of some sort.

I even conceded this very thing repeatedly - one can indeed not prove, that brain-activity is the the cause for the mind.

I know what you say - it could be, all the wonderful chemistry and electrics are in reality only the result/tools of the spirit´s arcane activities outside of known physics.

I think - if the brain has to be such a very complicated an organ, and needs so much energy to bring forth these phenomena for the spirit - how then can the spirit survive without it´s tools, and without any influx of energy (not that we noticed energy disappearing into thin air somewhere..). Not only survive - but go about processing and communication of information - to us and into our realm of physics even, if we believed that.

And this brain as an invention of evolution has brought forth very similar phenomena in animals - from the very beginnings of instinctive steering per external input computation - to our furry, feathered and otherwise covered animal friends, who very much seem to have a mind of their own in my view.
How come there is something even more sophisticated - not dependant on all this energy, we transform.
How could then a spirit suddenly - from thin air - survive on its own - perform feats, we mortals have to use energy for - like transmitting information.
Adding complexity - fighting off entropy, when interacting into our sphere at least they would.
Why should I believe such a thing was given upon me or has sprung from my mind-brain, if you go with Sageous.

Originally Posted by Nailler

My belief is that we are prevented from communicating with past lives or being aware of past existences because that would ruin the game of life. That is, it would substantially reduce the stakes and thereby lessen the game....like the difference between playing poker for big money and playing for toothpicks.

To put it another way the game changes from "when you're dead, you're dead, YOU LOSE!" To "ho-hum, you're dead... now you get to start a new game." Might as well stay home.

There is still the Hinduism-portrait of Alan Watts to go into - that big drama, the godhead dreams for itself.
So we and all our reality would be just it´s dream - we would indeed as individuals not exist at all.

All of us were in reality only "personae", created by part of the one dreamer.
But not like when you watch a drama - and the roles are being dropped - the actor comes out and has a life - no - we were only DCs.
And then the godhead is waking up every 4.320.000 years and then once more and so on.
As entertainment for the godhead.
A form of solipsism, I suppose.

Why would I complicate matters to such and extent - if I did not have some sort of personal experience of the "transcendent"?
Maybe I would be more prone to having them culturally - instead of organised western religion - being exposed to encouragement towards meditation, awareness practice in general and dreaming-art?

And once you have a system - Hinduism here as example - people who did never have such experience in the first place - or did, but would not have theorised that far on their own - will be told the godhead stuff is true, because there are trustworthy seeming advocates galore.

Do you maybe Nailler or somebody else - see it like this?
It makes a lot more sense in itself, like Watts was going about explaining it - I am still not through the video completely, though - at 38 min...
And yeah - this game-hypothesis has a knack, which makes it impregnable to my argumentation against astralboy´s version, where every existence in itself would hold one player - one individual like all other humans are also individuals.

No ethical conundrums, no "why play such a role" - there simply is no player, no "person" playing the game in this view.
If you say - all are one being, namely the godhead - then you are actually negating the person you experience as you.

The person with characteristic peculiarities and memories and everything, which supposedly survives death - it will vanish latest in the moment the godhead wakes up from it´s four million + years dream.
You as persona in the drama do not have a free will of your own then, too - that is pure illusion for sure then.

Like consciousness research does suggest it in an almost frighteningly compelling manner as well - free will stands on feet of porcelain.

Well - if I play my role and have no real choice either - I might as well enjoy myself!
Cheers!
smile.gif

I´ll answer you later Sageous!
smile.gif

**user5659** · 11-26-2013 09:57 PM

This question is going too deep into unknown. I think each of us should come up with our own understanding of this question. I don't see any scenario where we could come to one answer.

Personally I think that it is our brain that creates dreams, but it is not limited to only our brain. I think it is a mix of things, our brain receives certain information then it reproduces that information with a mix of:
- Interaction with information from unknown sources
- Our life experience (past memories) - Both conscious and unconscious minds.
- Both our past memories and source of unknown information are perceived in its own way
- add Imagination
- controlled by our - Intention and Expectation

In the end we receive a stream or flow of information that we call dream.

Unknown source of information is very important here. Yes some of our dreams are created by our imagination and intention, but some dreams are mostly created of unknown material and information.

**Sageous** · 11-26-2013 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by Nailler

My belief is that we are prevented from communicating with past lives or being aware of past existences because that would ruin the game of life. That is, it would substantially reduce the stakes and thereby lessen the game....like the difference between playing poker for big money and playing for toothpicks.

To put it another way the game changes from "when you're dead, you're dead, YOU LOSE!" To "ho-hum, you're dead... now you get to start a new game." Might as well stay home.

Though this is as sensible as anything else we've been saying here, I've always had a problem with this sentiment.

It implies that someone else is in charge of the development of our being, as if we're unwitting participants -- pawns, perhaps -- in Someone Else's plan. I'd rather think that we're simply starting each process of becoming an ascended being from scratch with birth, and the quality of that ascension is based upon what we contributed to its state throughout our lives. This also might help explain the lack of communication: we might simply not be consciously ready to communicate until after we're dead.

I did write a short story once, though, where the protagonist discovered absolute proof that there is an afterlife -- and then half the world's population was dead from suicide in less than a year. So your point is a vlid one to me regardless, I guess!

Originally Posted by flowofmysoul

Unknown source of information is very important here. Yes some of our dreams are created by our imagination and intention, but some dreams are mostly created of unknown material and information.

...but aren't you at all curious about that unknown material, and how it finds its way into your dreams?

**StephL** · 11-26-2013 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sageous

Haven't we, though?

Isn't religion itself really just a culture of and for communicating with life-after-death? Don't the Tibetans et al practice dream and sleep yoga with the intent of participating in the life-after-death transition? The practice of Shinto is still fairly prevalent in Japan, isn't it? Yes, once greedy, or, worse, righteous, humans get their hands on the tenets of religion and turn it all into Organized Religion the cultural part may collapse, but doesn't that basic core of innate belief in something more that inspires religion count as a universal sense of communication with the afterlife? Or at least an assumption of communication (what, after all, is prayer, if not that?)?

Forget religion; what about pop-culture itself? We seem constantly inundated with new (very popular) books, movies, and TV series centered on the assertion of life-after-death. Why would they be so popular, if we all didn't already have that sense of it built into our psyches?

I think we have all been communicating, even professionally, with at least the notion of more for a very long time -- probably since we lived in caves and trees. Yes that communication might be one-way and delusional, but that does not discount its presence.

No - I think, we haven´t.
I mean it in a way, so that really people would go about finding murderers by holding seances.
Or get to know from authors, where they have put the end to their last novel - in which box..
Like - that it is not one-way - I can go talk to a tree then - it also won´t answer.
And that it really works.
Which it doesn´t - people want to prove it does for ages - and nobody manages convincingly - let alone regularly and usefully.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Good question. And here is another that is worth considering, I think: If you have become an ascended, energy being, capable of an existence that completely transcends your corporeal life, would it matter if you were no longer you? Does a butterfly mourn its former life as a caterpillar?

Funny thing -- I have had a problem for most of my adult life (especially after a few years of advanced LD'ing) about the "classic" rationale for ascribing things like love, compassion, loyalty, honor, etc, to the spiritual side of existence. I've come to think the opposite, that all these things are simply our sentient amplifications of core, genetically-borne instincts. What is love, after all, beyond a drive to reproduce, and then protect those that we reproduced? What is compassion, beyond a need to maintain the integrity of the herd (or pack, as it were)? And so on. Yes, we've made much of them all, and their roles in our lifelong pursuit of joy is unquestionable ... but they are still genetically based -- we did not create love with our minds, or souls; rather, we interpreted the sensation of love that is part of our natural lives.

The point is, all these emotions may in fact only reside in the mind-brain, and could very well be let go of when their programmed purpose becomes moot. So, yeah, they would have stayed behind, and you as an ascended being might not miss them. (cue once more the umbrage-laden "damn, that's cold, Sageous; I would never be that way, or even want to be that way!" responses...)

I think there would be a consciousness. I would like to think that compassion of some sort would endure, perhaps as an echo of our corporeal origins, and that it might help define us. But that may just be hormone-based wishful thinking.

It does indeed. But I would think of it less as an "interest loss" than, perhaps an "interest shift."

Soo - your 'spirit' makes actually much more sense to me in the "Sageous-cold-mode".
Makes the brain-tool-need-for-spirits-to-have-mental-characteristics-of-a-human- argument wither.

The question in your case then really being to find out, where all that then will take place, and with what substrate.
If it were energy as we know it for substrate - I think, one will get tangled up in physics and it´s laws, when one wants to ascribe any such thing as consciousness or life to it.

But - so one could argue - isn´t energy matter - and do you not say yourself, that consciousness springs from matter?
It would be back to the lack of communication then, with all that goes into that - if they are conventional energy, in some sort of trans-phyical, or trans- current understanding of physics sphere.

It is an extremely far reach to propose.
I just feel the motives for doing this far reach are also hardwired in the brain - like love, compassion etc. - so there is laid down in us the inert capability to said experiences.
Were it not for them - our imaginations wouldn´t so readily go helter skelter with all that we otherwise know.

And personal experience - esp. introspectively witnessed phenomena of the mind itself - is so inherently prone to be flawed.
Not just flawed in any which way - but usually biased in a way to help us along, fitness-wise.
I can´t bring myself to "believe myself" there + there is not (yet?) something to scrutinise concerning convincing paranormal occurrences.
I will report, though, if something occurs..wink.gif

Originally Posted by Sageous

Now there is an excellent rationale for why we're not communicating with the dead. Eternal beings could very well use time in a different manner than we mortals, and it might be that we all cannot get onto the same temporal page; except of course for the blurry near nonsense that those few ghosts or mediums who insist on trying do manage.

Yupp - in the book - there are the so called "Dwellers" - beings who live ultra-slowly in the depths of a gas-giant planet.
And there are institutions - run by families over generations, the "slow seers" - who say goodbye to their fast contemporaries - and slow down to meet and communicate with these dwellers in super-pressure-save personal little ships.
Surfacing back hundreds of years later..
This is absolutely glorious, this book!

Originally Posted by Sageous

Originally Posted by StephL

Buut - I am very much drawn to art about and around the very borders of experience and knowledge and technology and very surprising findings out.
This is a phantastisch playing field for the mind.

Yes it is. But the real thing to do here is wonder why this is so, I think!

Why the fascination?
Well - in the background or foreground, too - humans want a better life and do not want to cease to exist.
Such wonderings can in theory lead to an actual reality, too!!
For example substitute the body for the much cherished conscious mind of ours.
Grow bio-constructs and transfer the very structure and its content of your mind-brain over to that - potentially super cosy and immortal new shell.
Maybe laser-beam it to the stars..
There goes my question - can this be done??

So why am I drawn to such art?
Inspiration, flexing thought and freshening up perspective..

And it is a motive, around which there is already a large and elaborate and wonderful body of art - also philosophy, psychology, science and other non-art-texts/films/whatever to enjoy and build on around.
And it´s not so much the "transcendent" in a spiritual way in literature, I am drawn to, with some really beautiful exceptions - but rather speculative fiction.

A. Andrew Gonzales, dwelling in my signature with link would go into the spiritual section rather.
But even he does not in any way say, there is channelling going on, or he has messages to transport, or something - he receives inspiration in his experiences.
Now that is something nice for the "spiritual" to do!!

Originally Posted by Sageous

I'm not sure if Astralboy is still with us (though I hope so), but I'm also not sure we've strayed so far from topic with this stuff -- after all, isn't it all ultimately the same thing?

No we didn´t stray too much. But he had already announced to have said his all a while back..wink.gif

**Nailler** · 11-26-2013 11:43 PM

Sorry if I misunderstood you earlier, StephL. I do appreciate your contributions to this thread.
N.

**StephL** · 11-27-2013 11:53 AM

And I yours Naill - no need to be sorry!
smile.gif

**Wrighty** · 11-28-2013 11:41 PM

Right i just came up with this idea just on the spot and was like ooo

Someone mentioned something about radio signals right well heres a fact for you, radio masts and alot of computer equipments have crystaline structures and can recieve and send signals.

So what is it to say that our brains do not emit and recieve signals? ie our minds can project thoughts and dreams into the present, past and future!?

Right now another weird thing i heard was that you know that tinnitus sound or that buzzing sound you here? Well people have been known to really concentrate on it that hard that they began to hear whispers of the past,present and future!

So now the idea i have is that time is an illusion and thus allows us to recieve memories from the past and future ie a dream from a past and future, Possibly someone from a past life? And past life i mean you are just viewing someone who's memory/signal integrated with you

ooo the possibilities are endless

**Wrighty** · 11-28-2013 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I dont know what to believe about shared dreams yet. But I do believe that the tought-sharing here, is making some nice progress!

Astralboy, about the tibetan monks. I think that's a great and important aspect that you bringing in to the table here. I cant say that have any larger knowledge about the tibetan monks, even if they really fascinates and inspire me in many ways. It's at least not hard for me to consider these monks like the nr1 scientists in the topic of consciousness. And it's there I think that you Sageous said some interesting thing about that "the scientists as yet know almost nothing about consciousness". And I've heard that before to.

So at this point, wouldn't it be better to start to pay some more attention about what these monks have discovered? I do know that buddhist monks have a lot of sacred teaching, like the tibetan book of the dead. These teachings should have some really good pointers aimed a bit closer to the truth's about things like, where dreams are originated from, or if there is a life after death, etc. These questions about life, is what it seems, much harder to even try to measure with todays technology. I personally think that science should merge in with spirituality like a yin and yang.

My brother and i often think the same think and say it out aloud at the same time or he would say something id just about to say and visa versa

**Nailler** · 11-29-2013 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by Wrighty

My brother and i often think the same think and say it out aloud at the same time or he would say something id just about to say and visa versa

Hi Wrighty,

When my brother and I were little kids, we could consistently guess what color or number the other was thinking of. We would amaze our friends with the trick. I have no idea how we did it.

N.

**DreamyBear** · 11-29-2013 07:34 PM

Right now another weird thing i heard was that you know that tinnitus sound or that buzzing sound you here? Well people have been known to really concentrate on it that hard that they began to hear whispers of the past,present and future!

Wow Wrighty, that idea was definitely a new one to me. Have you tried it for yourself? Sounds interesting though, I think I will try it myselfe.

When my brother and I were little kids, we could consistently guess what color or number the other was thinking of. We would amaze our friends with the trick. I have no idea how we did it.

These kinds of small mystery, is what makes me think outside of the box from time to time. There have been some big action on this thread before. But I think this is what this thread is all about in my opinion. To sharing one owns experiences of wierd things that happen to oneselfe, or just sharing different ideas without trying to get an corect answer to every thing. Just leave things open for tought.

**Journeyman** · 12-01-2013 08:36 AM

Human beings seem to require things to believe in , belief systems , which often puts critical thinking on the back burner or nixes it entirely . To me the people who support ' Science ' as if it is some invariably incorruptible source of truth , neglecting to look at government and corporate use of science for nefarious ends , are just as annoyingly stupid as the New Age idiots awaiting " Ascension" . Both may be said to be suscribing to religions by broad definition .
Science is just a tool , not a belief system .
This does not answer the question posed by the thread , but for scientific study of the brain , 'paranormal' experience , consciousness , I highly recommend
search of the names : Dr Michael Persinger , Todd Murphy . Shiva/Shakti neuro-science brain stimulation is cutting edge technology , and it is available .
Dr Colin Ross is also doing interesting research on capturing eye beam EM signal . Nikola Tesla , Eric Dollard for information about dielectricity which defies Einstein's 'relativity' theories stating that there is no energy irrespective of matter .

**StephL** · 12-01-2013 07:01 PM

I find the examples and high flying hopes put forth by you - Wrighty, Nailler and DreamyBear - not justified. All that is completely normal and such synchronising effects - especially with people often together - are really news from yesterday.
Sounds hard maybe - but really - you are wasting your time hunting after such notions of having telepathy with a close person and going right off the scale from there, concerning what all seems possible.

Bit too much effort now - but there are interesting things and findings to read on synchronicities etc..
If you look for critical assessments of it - you find what you need.

That is always a good idea - if you want to believe in something new - check out not the ones, who say what you want to believe - but read the critics - only if something comes through this intact, will it be any worth to you.

It is a good way to discern the reliable from the deceitful.

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Right i just came up with this idea just on the spot and was like ooo

Someone mentioned something about radio signals right well heres a fact for you, radio masts and alot of computer equipments have crystaline structures and can recieve and send signals.

Hehe - how nice! The crystal radio - I wanted to build myself one, when I was a teenager, but nothing came of it.
No - but - you got that wrong - a crystal-radio can only receive, it can not even amplify.
But it does need no power source - only a long antenna.
You can receive only over a relatively short distance - and only certain frequencies, too.

Spoiler for On Crystal Radios Wikipedia:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A crystal radio receiver, also called a crystal set or cat's whisker receiver, is a very simple radio receiver, popular in the early days of radio. It needs no battery or power source and runs on the power received from radio waves by a long wire antenna. It gets its name from its most important component, known as a crystal detector, originally made with a piece of crystalline mineral such as galena. This component is now called a diode.

Crystal radios are the simplest type of radio receiver and can be handmade with a few inexpensive parts, like an antenna wire, tuning coil of copper wire, capacitor, crystal detector and earphones. They are distinct from ordinary radios because they are passive receivers, while other radios use a separate source of electric power such as a battery or the mains power to amplify the weak radio signal from the antenna so it is louder. Thus crystal sets produce rather weak sound and must be listened to with sensitive earphones, and can only pick up stations within a limited range.

The rectifying property of crystals was discovered in 1874 by Karl Ferdinand Braun, and crystal detectors were developed and applied to radio receivers in 1904 by Jagadish Chandra Bose, G. W. Pickard and others.

Crystal radios were the first widely used type of radio receiver, and the main type used during the wireless telegraphy era. Sold and homemade by the millions, the inexpensive and reliable crystal radio was a major driving force in the introduction of radio to the public, contributing to the development of radio as an entertainment medium around 1920.

After about 1920, crystal sets were superseded by the first amplifying receivers, which used vacuum tubes (Audions), and became obsolete for commercial use. However they continued to be built by hobbyists, youth groups and the Boy Scouts as a way of learning about the technology of radio. Today they are still sold as educational devices, and there are groups of enthusiasts devoted to their construction who hold competitions comparing the performance of their home-built designs.

Crystal radios can be designed to receive almost any radio frequency band, but most receive the AM broadcast band. A few receive the 49-meter international shortwave band, but strong signals are required. By the nature of their operation, crystal radios can only demodulate amplitude modulation (AM) signals, and not frequency modulation (FM) or digital signals. The first crystal sets received wireless telegraphy signals broadcast by spark-gap transmitters at frequencies as low as 20 kHz.

Originally Posted by Wrighty

So what is it to say that our brains do not emit and recieve signals? ie our minds can project thoughts and dreams into the present, past and future!?

This is your conclusion from the fact, that one can receive some radio-signals with the help of crystals?

First of all - there are no special crystals in your brain - and no - chalk in the pineal gland is not a crystal.
Secondly - crystals can not send signals but receive certain radio waves.
Thirdly - our brains do not emit radio waves - what they do produce though is electrical activity - called "brain-waves" in common usage.
"Brain waves" are more accurately called neural oscillations - there is an oscillation of the voltage of electrical current - not waves being sent out.
What the EEG picks up are voltage fluctuations resulting from ionic current flows within the neurons of the brain.
And here an explanation, why the voltage fluctuates and where the actual oscillation takes place:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Neural oscillation is rhythmic or repetitive neural activity in the central nervous system. Neural tissue can generate oscillatory activity in many ways, driven either by mechanisms localized within individual neurons or by interactions between neurons. In individual neurons, oscillations can appear either as oscillations in membrane potential or as rhythmic patterns of action potentials, which then produce oscillatory activation of post-synaptic neurons. At the level of neural ensembles, synchronized activity of large numbers of neurons can give rise to macroscopic oscillations, which can be observed in the electroencephalogram (EEG). Oscillatory activity in groups of neurons generally arises from feedback connections between the neurons that result in the synchronization of their firing patterns. The interaction between neurons can give rise to oscillations at a different frequency than the firing frequency of individual neurons. A well-known example of macroscopic neural oscillations is alpha activity.

Oh - and fourthly - how come - all in this one moment of inspiration by the wonders of the crystal-radio - now you also throw time as a basic concept of human experience out of the window!
Wow - some leaps and bounds indeed.

Originally Posted by Wrighty

Right now another weird thing i heard was that you know that tinnitus sound or that buzzing sound you here? Well people have been known to really concentrate on it that hard that they began to hear whispers of the past,present and future!

First of all - the crystal radio ain´t no weird stuff and you didn´t listen closely, if you understood, you can send with these.
"People have been known to.."
Who has when heard what, and who you got that from in the first place?
People listen to radios out of tune, or other white noise in the hope for contact with aliens or ghosts or whatever since a long time - and there is yet to come anything true of these messages.
There are no reasonable accounts of that - and I do not believe that you have a source to what you heard - or do you?

Originally Posted by Wrighty

So now the idea i have is that time is an illusion and thus allows us to recieve memories from the past and future ie a dream from a past and future, Possibly someone from a past life? And past life i mean you are just viewing someone who's memory/signal integrated with you

ooo the possibilities are endless

Do you remember you threw time out the window without even trying to connect this to some imaginary background?
That was just so.
And what you propose now - is that you could catch up some sort of thought-waves - the original first person experience - of any person ever alive. At will - at any point to their lives - and you would know everything about everybody.
Go look how Michael Jackson or Hitler or - Jesus!! - was from the inside.
Whoa.
And that all by growing crystals in my head, or how was it again?
Sorry - now that was all a bit nasty - but how much uncritical thinking is still healthy I wonder ..

What you can do - as far as I have followed accounts - is simulate any person you can think, of to such a degree, that the experience is completely convincing to you - incl. little "surprises".
If you are good at that - you could well get the illusion, that what you dreamt up had a real information content.

I needed to repeat myself about why I think, there would be deep cultural differences if such an ability would lie within us - no way this our society would have come to pass as it has.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Human beings seem to require things to believe in , belief systems , which often puts critical thinking on the back burner or nixes it entirely .
To me the people who support ' Science ' as if it is some invariably incorruptible source of truth , neglecting to look at government and corporate use of science for nefarious ends , are just as annoyingly stupid as the New Age idiots awaiting " Ascension" . Both may be said to be suscribing to religions by broad definition .
Science is just a tool , not a belief system .
This does not answer the question posed by the thread , but for scientific study of the brain , 'paranormal' experience , consciousness , I highly recommend
search of the names : Dr Michael Persinger , Todd Murphy . Shiva/Shakti neuro-science brain stimulation is cutting edge technology , and it is available .
Dr Colin Ross is also doing interesting research on capturing eye beam EM signal . Nikola Tesla , Eric Dollard for information about dielectricity which defies Einstein's 'relativity' theories stating that there is no energy irrespective of matter .

Well - I made my point on science often enough - 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.
It is not.
But yes - some people, or people sometimes - behave almost as if it were, when their beloved "science" is attacked - this is unfortunate.

And concerning your sources - for starters - here a great article on a great but troubled man: Nicola Tesla

The Cult of Nikola Tesla