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

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.

StephL, this was something I would tell myself to, before I gave it some tought. What is waste of time really? If every one only did the "right" thing in the world, wouldn't we stop to learning a long time ago? And if we stop thinking/learning/exploring, because all knowledge is fulfilled. Would we then just live and survive with out goals? And would only living in it self be a waste of time then? Well I dont think that waste of time is possible to be honest. And what is merely living is something that is easy forgotten in the modern world we live in. What matters in the end, is feelings and what you have experienced, what ever you experience. I think. So this leeds up to other questions like, could imagination/thoughts/feelings ever be wrong? I would say that it depends on the persons own feeling about what is wrong. So that means that it would be almost impossible to say whats wrong or not if there is different beliefs.

So all I want to say with this is that, the urge to get an answer to this threds question "What is the evidence that dreams are produced by the brain?" does not matters to me really. The only answer that appears in my mind is that there is no solid truth about where dreams originate from. But that thougt doesn't make me less intelligent, wich some people seems think. But to me, those people just seems to have the lack of imagination.(Im not refering this to you StephL) And to have a wider imagination doesn't conclude that one doesn't refer to believe more in the most obvious answer, for example that the possibility that dreams originate from the brain is in the brain.

This thread should in my opinion. Be more aproched with imagination, than already known answers/"truths". Because expanding one owns already known beliefs doesn't really bring anything new to the table if you ask me. So if we in the end would just agreeing on what is known, the imagination part kind of shrinks. So with less imagination, one is more easily to get stuck in the curent thoughtpattern and the expanding of the mind is limited to one's already existing beliefs. No wounder then that beliefs that differs from one own's, gets hard to grasp then So when it comes to beliefs, no matter what it is. beliefs always taste better with a grain of salt

Originally Posted by StephL

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.

Except for when it is.

Science can be, and sometimes is, perverted to forward a political or religious agenda. You may argue, "but that's not science" and strictly speaking you would be right. Yet in every age there are "scientific" theories accepted for extended periods of time as factual and undisputed, when in fact they are nonsense. And they ARE the science of the day.

Not saying that theories based upon religious, mystical, or subjective experience be given the same weight as those subjected to the scientific method. Just making the point that we shouldn't make the pedestal upon which we place SCIENCE too high, as it now and then takes a fall.

N.

It seems to me that one main reason scientists assume, based on the evidence available, that dreams are created by the brain, is because it is a relatively simple, straight forward answer, and because there is no evidence to the contrary.

If dreams are not created by the brain, we have to assume there is "something else" creating the dream, but there is no verifiable evidence (through current scientific experimentation) that there is a "something else" to create our dreams.

One answer fits within our observations, the other requires an extra, unobserved "something."
Could there possible be something else we haven't discovered yet? Sure, that's happened lots of times. However, until then, it seems safe to assume that dreams are most likely a product of the physical brain, just like all our other thoughts and emotions.

I find it funny how when it's time to act (like in a brain procedure) everyone believes in science. When we're talking about certain experiences, skeptic-go-with-evidence-and-logic science is "not flawless". Then again, those same people try to "reason" half of their thought process, and dismiss the fallacies present on the rest of it as "science is not necessarily right".

If every one only did the "right" thing in the world, wouldn't we stop to learning a long time ago? And if we stop thinking/learning/exploring, because all knowledge is fulfilled.

If we all took the route of "anything is possible" then we'd still live in the stone age. This sense of mystification towards dreaming is exactly what puts us so behind, and I'll go further than StephL and state this: it annoys me. From people claiming that a 500 people can dream with a shoe and it has the same meaning (you'll get rich, or someone will die soon), or that dream telepathy can work without any type of devices...

Sure we can go on and come up with 500 new theories of how dreams are produced outside the brain....then 500 more theories of how those dreams make it into the brain...or we can just keep studying the brain to understand how dreaming could be an ephiphenomenon of memory consolidation. Who wants to bet which one will give us the best route to the Truth?

Sorry for the mini-rant, the title of the thread itself burns in the back of my brain xD

Originally Posted by Zoth

If we all took the route of "anything is possible" then we'd still live in the stone age.

When it comes to understanding the nature of the mind and our awareness of our own awareness, we are still living in the stone age. And studying the brain for answers to some questions may be the equivalent of studying Hemingway's typewriter in an attempt to learn where his stories came from.

Why there is such an effort on the part of some to deny their own existence and assign their very essence to a brain, escapes me.

Then again, one person's awareness is another person's delusion.

N.

Originally Posted by Nailler

When it comes to understanding the nature of the mind and our awareness of our own awareness, we are still living in the stone age.

N.

That's my point: we left dreams and consciousness and mind in the hands of the theologists and philosophers. They brought us so far.
Look how faster we are going once we start to include the perspective of neurobiology, genetics, cognitive science in our lives. I'd say that thinking about the brain as an receptor and dreams as a non-physical product that get's directed to it is regressing in time, but that's just me

Originally Posted by Zoth

That's my point: we left dreams and consciousness and mind in the hands of the theologists and philosophers. They brought us so far.
Look how faster we are going once we start to include the perspective of neurobiology, genetics, cognitive science in our lives. I'd say that thinking about the brain as an receptor and dreams as a non-physical product that get's directed to it is regressing in time, but that's just me

As far as I know, neurobiology, genetics, and cognitive science have made no significant contributions to our understanding of consciousness and our awareness of our own awareness... happy to be enlightened if somebody can give me an example or two of such progress.

N.

Lol, what? You surely cannot be serious...

How about subconscious processes? How about comma? How about mental illness and psychoanalysis? How about artificial intelligence? How about perception? And those are just the ones that literally everyone has heard about.

Scientists are being humble (and honest) when they say they still can't exactly define consciousness. Don't confuse that with "we know zero about it". What you're starting to see is a growing number of researchers saying there is no evidence for consciousness to be anything more than an ephiphenomenon of multiple brain processes, that maybe there isn't any "ghost in the machine".

PS: new research on consciousness is coming every day, you don't need to look hard for it:
Lucid Dreamers Help Scientists Locate the Seat of Meta-Consciousness in the Brain

Originally Posted by Zoth

Lol, what? You surely cannot be serious...

How about subconscious processes? How about comma? How about mental illness and psychoanalysis? How about artificial intelligence? How about perception? And those are just the ones that literally everyone has heard about.

Scientists are being humble (and honest) when they say they still can't exactly define consciousness. Don't confuse that with "we know zero about it". What you're starting to see is a growing number of researchers saying there is no evidence for consciousness to be anything more than an ephiphenomenon of multiple brain processes, that maybe there isn't any "ghost in the machine".

PS: new research on consciousness is coming every day, you don't need to look hard for it:
Lucid Dreamers Help Scientists Locate the Seat of Meta-Consciousness in the Brain

Oh, but I am serious. You mentioned a few subjects but no breakthroughs. That they've observed and named such things has improved our understanding of brain function, but has done nothing to shed light on the nature of consciousness and who or what it is that is aware of being conscious.

As for psychiatry and mental healing, the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness is falling apart... to the chagrin of big pharma.

Psychoanalysis has never been shown to be more effective than witch-doctoring.

Artificial intelligence is not aware... nor is it truly intelligent.

Like many others, you assume somebody somewhere knows something about the nature of consciousness and awareness with scientific certainty, but that is not the case.

The idea that no one is home... that the meat of the brain or electrical phenomenon is somehow aware of itself is absurd on it's face... at least to me. But to explore that avenue I would ask, who or what is it that is aware of the meat of the brain or electrical waves being aware?

You can run, but you can't hide, Zoth. Like it or not, you do exist, and you're not your brain any more than you are the CPU in your computer.

But that's just my world view, and other folks' mileage will certainly vary depending upon where on the scale of awareness they live between fire hydrant and God. Or maybe I'm just too dim a bulb to see that I'm the one lost in the darkness.

N.

A little aside that I think I mentioned before:

Originally Posted by Nailler

The idea that no one is home... that the meat of the brain or electrical phenomenon is somehow aware of itself is absurd on it's face... at least to me.

Keep in mind that, given its 10 billion nerve cells, each capable of around 10,000 possible connections, the brain amounts to an incredibly complex piece of meat, and its electrical phenomena produce parallel computing power that puts current mainframes to shame. And don't forget the self-learning software that drives it all. In other words, it's a fairly amazing piece of meat whose power alone should make the question of self-awareness a bit less absurd. Come to think of it, and in the name of staying on topic, that kind of processing power would make "in-house" dream production a snap, even if it does turn out that self-awareness finds its source somewhere beyond the brain.

We might not know, yet, what drives sentience, or where its true home lies, but you might consider allowing at least a possibility that it is that couple pounds of meat that's creating the ghost. To dismiss that possibility as absurd on its face seems to reflect the same close-mindedness that you accuse scientists of having when they dismiss the possibility of an external consciousness simply because their discipline has yet to find any proof. Shouldn't this flexibility bend in both directions?

Originally Posted by Sageous

To dismiss that possibility as absurd on its face seems to reflect the same close-mindedness that you accuse scientists of having when they dismiss the possibility of an external consciousness simply because their discipline has yet to find any proof. Shouldn't this flexibility bend in both directions?

Fair enough, Sageous. It's evidence that I find it as difficult to imagine that our brains are self-aware as it is for some folks to imagine the existence of a spirit or soul.

Yes, it would seem that all that processing power would make dream production a snap. But in a lucid dream, who or what is directing the action?

Did you know that people in some early cultures conceived their thoughts and reasoning to be taking place in their hearts rather than in their heads?

N.

Nailler, while your belief that our consciousness exists as a separate entity to the brain/body is completely valid until proven otherwise, here are some wquestions I'd like you to think about.

Why do you reject science's explanation of consciousness being located in the brain? I know that the majority say that they don't really know the answer for sure, but why do you completely reject "science", even though science itself is a method for attaining answers to questions?

Also, assuming that the consciousness actually resides in the brain for a moment here, what else would the brain be used for, in all honesty? It controls our bodily functions, but so can a computer, yet as far as we know the brain is infinitely more complicated than our computers, so why is that if not for something else, possibly for creating/holding our consciousness?

Lastly, where do you think consciousness comes from, if not from the brain? And, perhaps more importantly, Why?

I acknowledge that science could have it completely wrong, and you could be right. There are plenty of things that scientists has been wrong about in the past, such as alchemy, the four humors, etc., but the thing is scientists are constantly looking to test their theories and refine them in order to try and find the truth. The consciousness could be somewhere other than the brain, absolutely, but looking at the probability of millions of scientists work over many years compared to personal experiences, the first seems a lot more likely to be true, even if the scientists theories are ever changing.

Ah - Zoth - thank you!!
Spares me loads of text!
And insideout, BlairBros and Sageous as well - for throwing in several good arguments!

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Stephl
From what I observe , your comment grudgingly agrees with my assertion that science is used as a belief system by "some people, or people sometimes", dismisses out of hand and does not address at all the peer reviewed and patented science I refer to , and ends with an ad hominem against Nikola Tesla , a logical fallacy . Thus I read in brief summary ; Yes Scientism exists , avoid the points , add logical fallacy . Nikola Tesla may or may not have been a 'troubled man' ; that has nothing to do whatsoever with the technology he pioneered .
Dr Michael Persinger has done nothing but peer reviewed , published scientific study , was formerly instrumental in development of military remote viewing technology , which is a fact on the ground whether or not one wishes to say it cannot exist according to 'Relativity' . Dr Colin Ross is also a published scientist . Todd Murphy has developed a technology from Michael Persingers work , that is functional .
I was just commenting on the post ; I was not addressing you in particularas you state ( "shouldn´t be that you address me with these ruminations on people behaving as if Science was just another form of dogma, a belief-system like religion." ) , but was just adding a side comment to the thread .

Okay - sure I am grumpy when I have to consider the unfortunate way, some - and really very few, and none in this thread - people treat Science like a religion.
Good that this is hypothetical in here - and it leads off topic either - you are not up against such here - so why hack on it again and again.
So - and ad hominem - that would be me telling you you were - don´t know - a man - and such not able to form a valid opinion.
What I did - I picked out Nicola Tesla from your mentioned sources - and provided a little article - which does him much praise, if you read it by the way. What it also states, is that he is being abused to supposedly stand behind all sorts of weird claims - very different claims, and having nothing at all to do with him.
Tesla did a lot of physics - so where is the connection to the topic on here?
I can see none whatsoever. Except you now drag up something..?
From the man himself?
What?
Why did you mention him in here?

I do not know the others - so maybe there are some studies hidden behind the names, who would deserve a look - but why on earth Tesla?
Tell me that.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

... Well I dont think that waste of time is possible to be honest. ..
So this leeds up to other questions like, could imagination/thoughts/feelings ever be wrong? ..
So that means that it would be almost impossible to say whats wrong or not if there is different beliefs.
So all I want to say with this is that, the urge to get an answer to this threds question "What is the evidence that dreams are produced by the brain?" does not matters to me really.
This thread should in my opinion. Be more aproched with imagination, than already known answers/"truths".
Because expanding one owns already known beliefs doesn't really bring anything new to the table if you ask me.
So if we in the end would just agreeing on what is known, the imagination part kind of shrinks. ...

Well - if you leave all bounds of rational thought and sit down and do a nice imagination session on your cushion -
Do you really believe, that what comes of it, is of the same value, than what comes of the deliberations of - say a highly educated and completely seriously devoted, but hopelessly convinced dualist, who wracks her brains () and tries to put a theory on it´s feet, which actually makes some sort of sense - at least internally?
Or of the same value as what a neuroscientist arrives at after meticulous observation, experimentation, extended study of what is known already - and at least equally heavy duty brain-wrecking?

This - sorry to say - I find plain arrogant and naive.
If you had a brain tumour - would you also sit down and imagine, how that might be - and where it might come from?
Maybe an egg by some mother alien, where you just need to meditate and spiritistically communicate to her, to please put that egg in the neighbours dog rather?
Or go to a neurosurgeon - implicitly suddenly making good use of all the knowledge that has been accumulated?

This thread makes no sense to you, as you say - so why throw up anything at all then?


@Nailler: The change in the view of psychiatry you throw up - you might have misunderstood something.
More and more there come up theories, how over evolution - certain genes have been preserved - seem to have a function for humans, which on the other hand lead to schizophrenia and depression and manic depression, when they show up in too concentrated a fashion.
But - there seem to be beneficial functions to them as well.
It is an interesting topic - very.
But the way you mention it - it feels to me, you have only read the headlines.
What comes with it is also a deeper understanding of the actual mechanisms lying behind the phenomena - namely they are rather deeper than just chemical imbalances - on the level of gene-expression, also synchronisation- phenomena - too much to go into.

But here is something again - like Zoth said - why do we not know more about the brain?
Not only because it is a difficult organ - also because for ages - all other organs were deciphered for function - while the mind-brain was largely left for religion and philosophers - on the assumption, it is just a receptor.

And how come you mention the heart - to believe in the heart as the source of mind is comparable to not to believing the brain is the source of mind - comparable to all the misty beliefs, not grounded in evidence in any way, of it originating anywhere arbitrary else.
Sounds like an argument against your line of reasoning - like - that was thought - sounded intuitively right - was abandoned due to overwhelming evidence for looking into the head and not the chest..







There are several points that cause this problem, people seem to have with the brain being the source of them as persons.
First of all - religion and out-dated philosophy has always looked down on meat and burned into the minds a picture of us being something better.
Namely something immortal - and with hope towards a better existence after death.
This is almost impossible to do away with - who wants to die after all?
Oh - and the magical powers - who does not want to have the potential to have those?

And the other thing is more basic:
Like when people want to cop out of explaining how life came to pass on this planet - they say it came from outer space and that´s it.
This is a transfer somewhere else in the universe and it still needs explaining.

Or the question - if God created all there is - what/who created God?

So - when you say - it simply can not be that something self-conscious consists of ordinary matter (bleurrhg..).
You say - it does consist of something else?
Pure energy?
That is the same as matter, theoretically!
I think, the cognitive problem arises to ascribe consciousness to any substrate at all.
I never see, how it makes it more marvellous and understandable to say consciousness consists of "insert whatever you believe".

You know what's interesting about your perspectives Nailer? You seem come with a mainstream knowledge of general science, like something you heard in the news, which can be seen in many parts of your posts. But by all means, let's get to the point:

You mentioned a few subjects but no breakthroughs. That they've observed and named such things has improved our understanding of brain function, but has done nothing to shed light on the nature of consciousness and who or what it is that is aware of being conscious.

-You're saying our breakthroughs on consciousness and it's characteristics in the scenario of a comatose patient aren't relevant? The fact that we're no longer declaring people death depending on the results we get on their evaluations?

As for psychiatry and mental healing, the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness is falling apart... to the chagrin of big pharma.

Another mainstream image of psychiatry...Do you know how the quality of life of many patients was improved by biomedical treatment? How schizophrenia patients are able to live better lifes? Do you think this was achieved by randomly giving them meds, or we actually know a bit about their loose of sense of self and what happens? That's consciousness by the way, and just by googling you can find many studies on it. Are you saying those weren't breakthroughs?
And the question of chemical imbalance falling apart is not a negative image for psychiatry. It just reflects our lack of knowledge on the brain during mental illness. I don't know if you're trying to me to show you some article in the lines of "humanity has reached the moon....and we revolutionized consciousness!", but your dismissal of super important methods of helping people with consciousness problems seems...funny. If you want to discuss mental illness by all means we can, but repeating what you hear from the media doesn't contribute at all.

Psychoanalysis has never been shown to be more effective than witch-doctoring.

This one I'm not even going to comment. Are you saying repression doesn't exist? Are you saying that childhood experiences cannot modulate an individual's personality? Once again, I sense you're just quoting what you hear in the media and stating it to be clear truth. Big deal that Freud was wrong in many things...psychoanalysis is still performed on a regular basis in conjunction with other types of therapy for great results. Just....go do some proper research...

Artificial intelligence is not aware... nor is it truly intelligent.

The first person to raise the case about we having a clue about consciousness really is...dismisses AI as not being "aware". Of course AI can be aware, in so many ways. Aware of their actions, other entities actions. Of course it can be intelligent: it can solve a multitude of problems, it has limited capacity for critical thinking...What's your point? Because AI (so far) isn't as smart as humans, or has our degree of consciousness (whatever that is), we haven't made breakthroughs? Once again, huge bias towards science...

The idea that no one is home... that the meat of the brain or electrical phenomenon is somehow aware of itself is absurd on it's face... at least to me. But to explore that avenue I would ask, who or what is it that is aware of the meat of the brain or electrical waves being aware?

*refrains from quoting darwin, sageous already did in a way*
You're missing the point. What (many) scientists believe is that there is no WHO or IT: the sense of self is just an illusion created by a multitude of systems working together towards the perception/interpretation of reality. If you had no senses, would you be conscious? You wouldn't be able to think (because you wouldn't be able to process images or language, or hearing), to receive any input from anywhere. Food for thought.

You can run, but you can't hide, Zoth. Like it or not, you do exist, and you're not your brain any more than you are the CPU in your computer.

The cherry on top of the cake: You accuse science from not being sure, but then you go out and make comments like this.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Yes, it would seem that all that processing power would make dream production a snap. But in a lucid dream, who or what is directing the action?

You are, just as you would direct the action in a video game, for instance. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

Did you know that people in some early cultures conceived their thoughts and reasoning to be taking place in their hearts rather than in their heads?

Yes. And it turns out they were wrong, as has been known for many centuries. Your point?

Haven't got time for a longer reply right now, Zoth, but just wanted to apologize for the can't run can't hide comment. In the light of day I don't see it as appropriate.

N.

Originally Posted by Nailler

Haven't got time for a longer reply right now, Zoth, but just wanted to apologize for the can't run can't hide comment. In the light of day I don't see it as appropriate.

N.

Oh don't worry about that in heated and passionate discussions is easy to be a bit more agressive than we wish to, I apologize if I acted like that as well.

Well - if you leave all bounds of rational thought and sit down and do a nice imagination session on your cushion -
Do you really believe, that what comes of it, is of the same value, than what comes of the deliberations of - say a highly educated and completely seriously devoted, but hopelessly convinced dualist, who wracks her brains () and tries to put a theory on it´s feet, which actually makes some sort of sense - at least internally?

StephL, I really think that what could come out of several imagination session on one's cushion, would have so much greater value VS rational thought mereley based on science. And why I believe that so, is because the the rational scientifically value wouldn't be a reliable source to handle your feelings in a beneficial way that pure belief/faith in something "irrational" can provide you with. I dont even think that science and spirituality is something one really could compare, because of their different meanings. Spirituality is more about feelings and one owns experience about one's self, rather than wide spread knowledge like science provide(wich is not a bad thing at all in my opinion). Spirituality is in my opinion a way to put one own's beliefs in, and a way to get one own's feelings in balance wich= A valuble life. To understand one own's feeling and to be able to have one own's beliefs, is something I value more than pure science. I also believe that tribes and monks, etc etc. Much likely lives a more valuble life than the average modern person does. And with that said, these tribes and monks do not care for science even if they might like it. Science provides the modern human with what he think he needs to live a valuble life. We might actually be a happier people if science was never born. But I personaly enjoy material things that science have provide us with, just so you dont get me wrong here. And that's whats science is all about, to understand how things work mechanically, and how all this mechanical works togheter. But science will not contribute any thing much, when it comes to human problems like Love/death/feelings, one's life! That is things you got to handle on your own, and it is here that I think spirituality/imagination/thinking/beliefs have it's power over science.

This - sorry to say - I find plain arrogant and naive.
If you had a brain tumour - would you also sit down and imagine, how that might be - and where it might come from?
Maybe an egg by some mother alien, where you just need to meditate and spiritistically communicate to her, to please put that egg in the neighbours dog rather?
Or go to a neurosurgeon - implicitly suddenly making good use of all the knowledge that has been accumulated?

I dont mind at all that you find this arrogant and naive. I actually understand why you think like you do. When you seems to asume that this tumour example you bring, would be some sort of a reasonable way for me to approach such tragic event. I can just answer this question with that I would feel more value in a strong belief that could make me handle my feelings in a way I prefer. Rather than have a large knowledge about all kind of things like how the brain and body works. What value would it have, if you know everything about how a car is built and works, if you dont know how to handle the car as you like to? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate more in your skill to drive it instead?

This thread makes no sense to you, as you say - so why throw up anything at all then?

I never said anything about that this thread dosn't makes sense to me. This thread actually makes more sense to me than you might think i would like to say What I said is that the "right" answer to this thread is nothing I need to try to get. If you have heard de saying about people who claims that it is the journey it self that matters. Then you could grasp the idea a bit better, in why Im here

Originally Posted by Sageous

You are, just as you would direct the action in a video game, for instance. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

The difficulty enters in when I try to grasp the nature of the "I" envisioned by others on this thread. Like there's a concept of the mind as a computer that is aware of itself. Just doesn't gel for me.

Yes. And it turns out they were wrong, as has been known for many centuries. Your point?

It's not a question of right or wrong. To their perception they thought and reasoned in a body part other than the head. My point is that although we in the current Western world conceive our consciousness to be seated in our heads, it could be that it's actually seated wherever we're convinced it's seated.

Re : The Cult of Nikola Tesla

Quote Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post
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 .

(Last edited by StephL; 2013-12-02 at 02:26.
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 )

May I remind you that the cult of Tesla was not created by Tesla himself , and furthermore that Ad Hominem is the very antithesis of the scientific method ? May I refer you to the Trivium ? May I suggest for you a search ? Free of logical fallacy . With the words Nikola Tesla and the words : Wife beater / niece / pedophile / abandoned his only son / plagiarist / Zionist /fraud / atomic bomb / number of patents / number of devices attributed to . See what evidence is unearthed . Then do the same with Albert Einstein . I understand any attack on your beliefs may arouse your science-defending rancour , but you are jumping the shark on this one .

Originally Posted by Journeyman

Re : The Cult of Nikola Tesla
May I remind you that the cult of Tesla was not created by Tesla himself , and furthermore that Ad Hominem is the very antithesis of the scientific method ? May I refer you to the Trivium ? May I suggest for you a search ? Free of logical fallacy . With the words Nikola Tesla and the words : Wife beater / niece / pedophile / abandoned his only son / plagiarist / Zionist /fraud / atomic bomb / number of patents / number of devices attributed to . See what evidence is unearthed . Then do the same with Albert Einstein . I understand any attack on your beliefs may arouse your science-defending rancour , but you are jumping the shark on this one .

Okay - that article I linked up is maybe indeed not suited for our purposes, and I can acknowledge your problems with it. Even from memory, without giving it another read. My fault - I had it bookmarked, but shouldn't have thrown it in here like I did.
So then the gist of my post would be the following:

Originally Posted by StephL

Some people are of the opinion, that Science is just another dogmatic belief-system comparable to religion.
It is not.
But yes, it happens that people behave almost as if it were, when their beloved "science" is attacked, which is unfortunate.

Scientific findings are what results from using the scientific method in order to gain knowledge and not dogmas - just as you say below.

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 .
Science is just a tool , not a belief system.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

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 .

What you are getting at here is not the scientific method per se. It seems to me, that we agree on the fact, that putting it into practice the way it is meant to be, is the best way to gain an understanding of the world.

There is always the possibility of corruption - just think of the attempts to "scientifically" show, that climate change is not man-made or even non-existent. Or look at creationists quite creatively bending data into the most ridiculous shapes.

Spoiler for off topic: slipping in a genial graphic on creationist "science" following a debate Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham:

What belongs intimately to the scientific method is peer review, though. Publications have to hold water in the eyes of the international scientific community. And the above examples just don't do that - no matter, what politicians or religious fanatics have on their agendas. These attempts at pseudo-science are getting debunked.
So do treatises on the paranormal - at least up to now. Were it differently - the international scientific community would be all over them.
Trying to replicate it, or failing that to debunk it - which does and did happen - the more extraordinary a claim, the more fascinating.
I said it before - if for example telepathy could be shown to work - it wouldn't only be neuroscience being revolutionized, but also physics.
It would rain Nobel Prizes. And it wouldn't be the first time, that science comes up with new evidence, throwing over older hypotheses. It is rare - but it did and does still happen.
But like usual - extraordinary claims, flying in the face of what we deem the most probable solution to our questions, require extraordinary, positive evidence.
It is worth mentioning, that this is the generally aim of scientific endeavours - coming up with the most probable solutions. If we find tons of positive evidence for something, and no contrary evidence - we can be reasonably sure, to have understood the topic in question properly according to what is available.
But it is generally an open process - it is the aim actually, to throw over one another's claims - this is what brings you glory, besides finding something completely new. Most honourable are people throwing over their own hypotheses in my eyes - it does happen, but rarely. That's what peer review and repeating experiments by other scientists is for.
Another thing worth mentioning is that you can't prove a negative - it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of an immortal soul, telepathy or god, as it is to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster for example, or an invisible little unicorn in one's garden etc.
That does not mean, that it makes sense to believe in any of them, if you are of a scientific mindset - taking on beliefs on the basis of evidence, not wishful thinking, or a book, or anecdotal evidence without backup.

Originally Posted by Journeyman

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 .

This is a lot to read up on, but I'll accept the challenge and will inform myself on these people's work.
To do this properly - not in the form of throwing in some article or other like I did with Tesla - this will take a while, and I hope, you will have the patience to give me that time.

The fact, that you have access to them excludes the possibility, that they aren't getting recognition in the world wide scientific community because of government conspiracies or the like (but you know that and said so, so this comment is not really relevant here). And if they would gain recognition, I would know about it - heck - almost everybody with access to media would know about it, probably. And to think, that somebody found evidence to disprove Einstein's theory of relativity is - sorry to say - it's naive. That would be a prime example for Nobel Prize storms and no doubt about it. Don't tell me, Einstein would be sacrosanct or something, and people too cowardly to get at it. Einstein did it to Newton's theory of gravity after all - and you see, what happened.




P.s.: I hope you take this as friendlily as it is meant, and not as an ad hominem: if you want to quote or multiquote - check out the lower right side of the respective post - with clicking "+" there, and then "Reply to Thread" on the lower left side of the whole page - you get the desired result with less hassle. What I do to take posts apart is simply copy-pasting the [Q..][/Q..] thingies around the text.

This thread :
What Is The Evidence That Dreams Are Produced By The Brain ? ,
It is presently beyond the ability of scientific measuring equipment and knowledge , to address this question .
The facts are , that we can observe that different parts of the brain are active during different activities , such as dreaming .
This does not then lead to the irrevocable conclusion that it is the brain and no other part of the human being that is producing the dreaming .
It is impossible to argue the thread topic , thus must devolve into argumentum ignorantium , arguing the arbitrary etc .

I reiterate ; the work of Michael Persinger in this field , with hundreds of published peer reviewed papers , is of interest , and that the hardware/software made available through Todd Murphy , Shiva/Shakti , is of possible interest for anyone who wishes to research this topic independently , for scientific or personal reasons .

Dear Stephl ;
The following is not said in attack mode . Opinions should not pit one against another , unless one denies the other freedom to have said opinions .
Emotion Grammar Logic Rhetoric ...... well , lets remove the emotion and place to one side .
I do not wish to debate with you Relativity , or whether or not scientists and researchers who do not believe in E=MC2 or Climate Change have the same access to publish in peer reviewed journals as those who toe the conventional institutional/political line . I do not have time , unfortunately .
I am a Climate Change 'Denier' . I do not subscribe to the theory of Relativity . Theories , not proven ; no matter how many computer models , complex and brilliant mathematical support for black holes , UN panels , Agenda 21 scientists , Al Gores , or Israeli Universities are thrown at the arguments , they are still full of holes . Cern , longitudinal dielectric known 100 years ago , Climategate , no warming , these I observe , and enter into my Grammar for assimilation , to exercise prerogative for freedom of thought , the same freedom I wish you to have .
Regarding Tesla , Steinmetz , Alexanderson , Heaviside , Einstein et al , I suggest that the study of electricity , very far from anything remotely resembling completion , and now dead for 100 years , will lead to new scientific understandings .

Well - considering that answer - I sincerely doubt, that it is worth my time to get into the specifics of the works of the people you brought up.
If there is somebody else reading this, who would like me to do it - speak up and I'll reconsider.
If you are denying climate change on the basis that you personally observe no warming and conspiracy theories - and the theory of relativity without the slightest understanding of the matter - nothing will change your mind I suppose.
Of course I do not know, if you understand Einstein's theories or even took a look at them in depth - but I'd bet all my actual and future possessions and money on that you don't. There are hardly any people, who are not physicists, who can claim to understand it fully - and you are clearly not one of them. I can only marvel at the arrogance of it.
On the other hand there are/have been hundreds of thousands of serious physicists, who do understand what they are on about, having actually spend years on studying physics, and all agree on it being solid. There is not one serious and renowned one of them, claiming it to be false.
And that is really all I need to make my mind up on the matter. I will consider changing said mind upon taking note of noteworthy results, agreed upon by at least a considerable percentage of actual physicists as to their validity - and no less. Believing some singular crank pulling off such a claim, just because it happens to resonate with your intuitions is folly.
So what's the point arguing with you about any of these things?
All you have on offer here is argument from ignorance.
Good luck in life - I'll rather return to my Christianity discussion - sort of thanks for sparing me the effort.



Yupp - getting emotional here - so what?

Stephl
So what ?
That is your religio-scientific brain hard at work , the best you can come up with
Typical of Einstenischen , or a Global Warming alarmist , a Monsanto supporter , or a believer in eugenics as the only way to deal with population growth . You simply declare it not worth your while to look at anything that does not conform to your views , and say so smugly and contemptuously , as you have expressly done in the above comment . Red Herring of a lady committing suicide by ignoring gravity . Thus you excuse yourself from responsibility for your arguments
like a child , and ignorance perpetuates itself . Conspiracy Theory , by the way , was a term invented by the CIA specifically to use as Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule , by people such as yourself against people such as myself . Since you lack civility , and coherent non fallacious logic , but do have emotion , go ahead and have the last word .