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

Hey people

Before I begin I want to tell that I'm not religious...lol
I'm very critical about everything, even science. Often scientific theories don't satisfy me, it is very often incomplete.
People in general and science tell us that dreams are produced by the brain. But what is the evidence of that ? Yeah we can see the effects in the brain while we dream, but this is not an evidence that it is produced by the brain. It means only that the brain is active.
So I ask you, what makes you accept that theory, what is the evidence for you?

People often say that lucid dreams and astral projections are the same, and I agree. But produced by the brain... I doubt. For exemple Peridic Table was discovered by Mendeleïev in dreams, there is an agent in the CIA that uses remote viewing, and so much of his discoveries were "real", "true". There is so much people who have "experience out of body" and see later that what they saw was real. And so much more other experiences... How can all this come from the brain ? Is it crazy to just say "coincidence" or imagination ? Or when you say to people who had NDE : it is just your imagination... For me it is wrong to have only theory and criticise those who "experience"... Because experience is direct knowledge. Theory is just opinion.
When we consider that the brain is only a receptor, all these experiences (nde, remote viewing, out of body experiences, lucid dreams...) fit in that theory. But when you consider that dreams are only from the brain then all these experiences seem "no natural".

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

There are a lot of things I need to address in your post, you seem to have a weak grasp on logic. Which is probably why refer to "pre-programmed thinking" in that way.

1)
statistically the theory of dreams being created in the brain is the most probable of all theories by a long shot. We can literally see the brain dream nowadays. We can witness how the brain interacts with memories, in what state the brain is in, even when it reacts to something from waking life. Our current theory on dreaming pretty much fits 99% of all cases.
The only times that this theory doesn't "seem" to hold up is when applying it to the examples you have given. It's funny though that none of the examples you have given have ever had successful scientific studies done on them. Scientists have done countless studies on NDE's, AP and especially Remote Viewing and never come up with any evidence that they exist. Yet you want us to believe that these occurrences are solid reason to completely disregard a brain theory that has been developed for the past 100 years with literally a million hours of work and evidence supporting it.
When I pick up a cup, I assume my hand did it. According to your logic I should be skeptical that I really lifted the cup. who's to say I didn't unconsciously use telekinesis or a ghost lifted it for me.

2)

experience is direct knowledge. Theory is just opinion.

Emmm.....no? Experience is experience. Experience comes with all the flaws of the human brain, over confidence, the idea that you must be right, biased thoughts. The reason we assume things as facts is because it works so good. We assume theories are usually correct because they have substantial evidence supporting them. If you lived purely through experience we could never explain why clouds form or why grass grows.
I'm not slagging experience, but it is far from being "direct knowledge".

3)

When we consider that the brain is only a receptor,

Wrong! the receptor part makes up maybe 10% of your brain. The brain is classified as a computer (To compute information). The receptors send information to the computing centers which make us function. The choices we make are almost certainly originating from the brain and from an outside source as you wish to accept.

4)
You are not being a healthy skeptic as you like to say you are. Your ideas basically originate from whether or not you like them and they fit your own world view.
The real question here should be why you think that dreams don't originate from the brain? The burden of proof lies on you. If you can prove that the past 20 years of extremely advanced dreaming science are wrong, then by all means go ahead.

Going cherry-picking here:

Originally Posted by Sageous

That's all true, except of course that that book is called The Tibetan Book of the Dead (in case anyone wants to do a search for it), and also that Tibetan lamas, much less the dream yogis, would never claim or desire to have a "full science" of anything, as they have little interest in empirical knowledge.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course, and the Tibetans' spiritual search might ultimately trump science (and it would be cool if it did!), but they really do not use any scientific process, so they have no science of dreams. Maybe that was a translation issue?

Though I appreciate your explanation, I am disappointed that you didn't share where you learned that Tibetan monks "practice shared dreams since forever, it is a part of the dream yoga," because I really was curious.

Oh well, I guess it was making us stray from your OP, wasn't it? So back to business?

"Oh well" is not enough for me!
Have you got this book, dear astralboy?

If you do have a book about the book - I would take a quote from such a secondary source seriously as well.
So - once again - where have you got the claim, that Tibetan monks are into dream-sharing since - well - since they founded their orders, is supposedly what you mean with "forever".

You opened a thread with a provocative title - so - now you have provoked a discussion - go ahead and feed in your sources.
That which makes you think, what you think - except your purely personal experience.

That is not good enough - because - it is ridiculously easy to deceive oneself in this terrain.
You going playing with your mind in a dreamstate is surely not something on which you base your worldview alone?

The Tibetan monks as a bunch would surely lend some credibility - at least for yourself!
So I hope you are sure, the source for your belief says actually that what you believe it says!

Don´t evade us - give a link or quote astralboy!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Actually there have been a lot of studies into telepathy and shared dreaming. Nothing has ever been exclusively proved, but there have been studies that have returned values that cannot be explained through chance alone. The scientific world is on these things more than you can imagine. A large reason why a lot of these studies never get started or come to light is because generally studies on esoteric concepts aren't well received (mainly by ignorant other scientists) and can shed bad light onto the authors. It's shame that it is this way but at least there are people trying, because every time some controversial study does produce good results it makes the rest of the scientific community more lenient towards them and we can get a step closer to pure science and a more accurate theory.

I am not aware of such studies, which threw up something unexplainable in a statistically significant matter.
Would you be so kind, as to link us up on this?

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

On the other side, no substantial evidence has ever been found for alternate theories.

Or did I misunderstand something?
Define substantial!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Originally Posted by astralboy

While we dream there is visible effects in the brain, we can observe them. There is no contradiction. And no one can argue with this!

Nothing contradicts it, that's right. But look at the probability.

Yes - that is certainly true!
I am very happy nobody takes him up on this quite crude challenge to commit a logical fallacy on "our side".

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

The current brain theory explain 99% of everything.

No - not yet - not by far.

Even if it seemingly does damage to the argument - it does not really.
The lacking puzzle-pieces do in no way seem to reside in the void - they are about the function of the physical brain as far as I am concerned.

But if I take it as - the community is divided on where the mind originates from - it is not.
From the brain - not the other way round.
If there really were one in 100 neuroscientists believing otherwise - that would definitively give me pause.
There are - don´t know how many tens of thousands around - definitively not one percent of them spiritists!!

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

From a current scientific standpoint your theory describes less than 1% of all cases.

No - as far as I know - see above - there is no proof or substantial evidence* of a soul or spirit at all.
None whatsoever.
*I mean, evidently not otherwise explainable

But please - you too - do link us up and cite, where you have found these studies or your´s.

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

When we make everyday choices we usually use probabilities. If there is a 90% chance of rain, we wear a rain jacket. The exact same logic is applied to choosing a theory. If one is currently producing brilliant results and has substantial evidence behind it, then it makes perfect logical sense to pick it and not some unusual idea that is equally valid to a million others floating around.

Even more so, instead of deciding on an entirely new theory, why not try to accept that maybe the current theory can be modified to accept your ideas. Because most scientists are certainly open to that idea.

Sorry to say so - but this logic seems flawed to me - I think, I know where you are coming from - you appeal to common sense and occam´s razor.
But once you say - these other theories are - you said - in between themselves, okay, but anyway - somehow scientifically valid - you open the door to go free-wheeling on the delusion scale - what I mean is - a personal experience will be seen as enough of a cornerstone for building a completely alternate system.
If you go that "the neurobiological viewpoint is probably better than believing in spirits" way - you will never get rid of the historic analogies a lá earth is flat etc then - this also seemed very highly probable in the past.

That´s not the point.
To my knowledge - see above - it is not so, that there is conflicting evidence.
Only personal naturally biased anecdotes.
Like you praise science - so do I - and if there was - there would be much of an uproar - and this uproar I would have definitively heard.
I read a lot of scientific articles around neuro-everything.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Dutchraptor, Im hooked on that part when you said "there have been studies that have returned values that cannot be explained through chance alone".

And rightly so - that´s why I asked him to conjure them up.
Let´s be curious and lets keep an open mind for these!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I can understand if experiments without enough solid proofs, cant be classified as a scientific truth. but to me, this part is the exciting part. When there actually have been some unexplained result, then even if it's just one single good result out of 1000 attempts. That one result is some kind of proof until it has been debunked if it's possible.
So it is at this point we could and should get critical, about that one successfully thing/experience that seemed to have occurred. [/COLOR]

Yepp - I fully agree - just I am afraid, there is not a single good result out there - and - mind you - to stand as this one exceptional good result - it must - and I mean must - be totally watertight.

See the thing with dark matter - link: http://www.dreamviews.com/science-ma...%B4t-know.html..*
They made experiments and thought, they had caught it.
But then - a huge tunnel was dug deep into a mountain, so they did not by mistake detect cosmological radiation and think, it is dark matter - and boom - no dark matter.
You see where I am getting at, probably - maybe this is confusing now - I leave it stand anyway.

I can cite studies, which have been debunked as very good cheating-attempts galore.
And that includes Rupert Sheldrake and his "morphogenetic fields" for example!
Didn´t watch the video - but his beloved pet theory was long ago debunked as bogus!

Also means - keep an open mind everywhere..

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Sageous, Im glad you brought that questions up. Because I believe it would be interesting to hear some toughts about these questions, based on everyones opinions according to what you all heard or read before etc. I think theories should be absolute bulletproof and tested out completely as much as possible to remain interesting.

Yepp.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

So here is some of my short tought's about why I speculate in that why dreams may not necessarily need to be originate from the brain. I've only heard claims from some people that talks about that they have been sharing dreams. I didn't get the feeling that they where trolling, based on that they seemed like legit and serious about their intrests in dreams.

Yeah - does not count for much on the proof level - but I believe in the sincerity of our beyonders as well!

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

I have also read a book called "The Field" by Lynne McTaggart, that's actually all based on scientiffic studies about all kinds of experiments like remotewieving etc. If all phonecalls, pictures ,informations etc. Got the ability to fly throu air and space before its picked up by a machine, why wouldn't it be the same with toughts and dreams? It's all energy, every thing is just pure energy. Would be nice to get some of your ideas on this. Let's brainstorming this thread now!

Okay - there we have something!
Thanks - but I will look into it a bit later.
You were calling for bulletproof-ness - would you attribute this label to this book you read, or was it rather an inspiration to you?
If you would say it is really, really convincing - based on experiments - I´d go ahead and nose about it.


* now I think of it - got to take on Penrose in there as well - and that is some exponentially more clever and harder to understand stuff he has/had as pet theory with this quantum-entanglement of the mind - but also debunked, not as fraud, though - but as somebody taking his physics and mathematics knowledge and trying it out on neurobiology in a logical but not enough informed manner

Originally Posted by StephL

Going cherry-picking here:

Yes you certainly did. Not to be rude, but your post was a little hard to understand at some points. But i'll try tackle most of the points to the best of my ability.

I am not aware of such studies, which threw up something unexplainable in a statistically significant matter.
Would you be so kind, as to link us up on this?

I'm sorry, I don't have a link to a particular article unfortunately. I'd look for it but I'm quite short on time. The essence of the article was that out of a total of circa 3500 experiments, a few hundred produced results outside of the error margin that were never fully debunked. Other scientists were skeptical about the results stating that the experiments where prone to error, but none the less the statistics still apply.
You should be able to find something worthwhile on google about it, if you look up ESP or telepathy.

Or did I misunderstand something?
Define substantial!

Substantial, of considerable importance. Earlier I said that nothing has been exclusively proven in the telepathy experiments, I don't think a discrepancy like this can be yet fully considered substantial evidence. That is my opinion of course.

No - not yet - not by far.

Even if it seemingly does damage to the argument - it does not really.
The lacking puzzle-pieces do in no way seem to reside in the void - they are about the function of the physical brain as far as I am concerned.

But if I take it as - the community is divided on where the mind originates from - it is not.
From the brain - not the other way round.
If there really were one in 100 neuroscientists believing otherwise - that would definitively give me pause.
There are - don´t know how many tens of thousands around - definitively not one percent of them spiritists!!

Ok then, the percentage was just used to make a point. I don't actually know the ratio, all I know is that the current brain theory works to explain most things to such a degree of efficiency that it is hard to fault it.

No - as far as I know - see above - there is no proof or substantial evidence* of a soul or spirit at all.
None whatsoever.
*I mean, evidently not otherwise explainable

But please - you too - do link us up and cite, where you have found these studies or your´s.

Again you're right. That was again a mistake on my part. I should phrased that differently. Your cherry picking is starting to confuse me So much inputs and thoughts in this topic make it hard to write logically and concisely.

Sorry to say so - but this logic seems flawed to me - I think, I know where you are coming from - you appeal to common sense and occam´s razor.

It's not flawed logic because I'm not taking precedence between theories. The scientific community uses Occams Razor as a heuristic to guide them through the development of a theoretical model.
I was replying to astral boy's comment It it not really scientific thinking because there is no evidence, and there is others interpretations possible. My reply was meant to show that scientists currently utilize Occam's razor because it usually produces good results, not because it is a method of producing an irrefutable theory. He is confusing the massive amount of study going into the current brain model because of simplicity for scientists choosing to neglect other theories.

^^ Though I agree with both you and StephL, mostly because I think you're both saying the same things but StephL just wanted you to take what you said even farther, I do have to cherry-pick one item:

Originally Posted by dutchraptor

Ok then, the percentage was just used to make a point. I don't actually know the ratio, all I know is that the current brain theory works to explain most things to such a degree of efficiency that it is hard to fault it.

I'm not sure this is completely the case. Yes, current brain science is pretty advanced, especially in the "watching things light up" department, but from what I've heard, the actual hard knowledge of how it all works together is still pretty sparse (forget about the "why," BTW), and this knowledge is necessary to truly support or disprove the theories. So yes, there's tons of experimental data and fMRI scans that confirm that there is definable and consistent activities in certain areas when we dream (and others when we LD), but it seems that the more neurobiologists learn about the brain, the more they discover that they don't know yet, and also the more they discover they were wrong about in the first place. So brain theory itself is still in a state of pretty elastic flux, and likely will be for years.

That said, I also think that you will be very hard-pressed to find a neurobiologist who believes that dreams are formed outside the brain.

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ Though I agree with both you and StephL, mostly because I think you're both saying the same things but StephL just wanted you to take what you said even farther, I do have to cherry-pick one item:



I'm not sure this is completely the case. Yes, current brain science is pretty advanced, especially in the "watching things light up" department, but from what I've heard, the actual hard knowledge of how it all works together is still pretty sparse (forget about the "why," BTW), and this knowledge is necessary to truly support or disprove the theories. So yes, there's tons of experimental data and fMRI scans that confirm that there is definable and consistent activities in certain areas when we dream (and others when we LD), but it seems that the more neurobiologists learn about the brain, the more they discover that they don't know yet, and also the more they discover they were wrong about in the first place. So brain theory itself is still in a state of pretty elastic flux, and likely will be for years.

That said, I also think that you will be very hard-pressed to find a neurobiologist who believes that dreams are formed outside the brain.

Indeed, I thought steph was largely agreeing with me, but I wasn't sure.

You are very right, the current brain theory has much room for more discoveries. I'm always astounded how often they improve it.
I did use the ambiguous phrase "to such a degree of efficiency" to cover myself in this case. I guess the current theory isn't faultless per ce, but I think you will agree that we have made enough strides in current brain theory to say that were the model shouldn't be too far off from the truth.

Just because once more I couldn´t resist to click such a thread - my two cents on Dmitri Mendeleev and his periodic table.
This also goes for Friedrich August Kekulé and the chemical structure of benzene - he dreamed of an Ouroboros - a snake biting it´s own tail - and came to realize, it is a ring structure.
Here something on the latter:

Originally Posted by Kekulé

This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds. This was 7 years after he had solved the problem of how carbon atoms could bond to up to four other atoms at the same time.

Both these guys had spent their lives with scientific research on chemistry and they held all the information they needed already in their brains.
Just they couldn´t bring them together, combine them and get a real insight, while pondering this knowledge of theirs awake.
Not enough imagination and free association I would say.

With this background - there is nothing unusual at all - in the sense of the OP - in what happened.
Their brains juggled all these data around in their dreams in a much more creative and open, associative way.
What is unusual is their being geniuses with vast intellect and imagination!

What happened there was classical inspiration. Not spirits telling them something.
They knew it all before, just didn´t see the connections clearly.
Neither one would have been happy about you coming along and trying to take that fact away from them, that they themselves did the work - including the synthesis while dreaming.

Oh - and that CIA agent - what exactly is the source for this story - do you have a link?

Thanks for the anwers.

CIA Remote Viewing : Stargate Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Joseph McMoneagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The real question here should be why you think that dreams don't originate from the brain?"

dutchraptor, Your answer is classical, you say what you read like most people. You accepted as a fact a theory. I asked an opinion and I had an answer, so thank you for your complete answer.
But I don't believe in that theory simply because I have my own experiences, I don't need others to say what MY experiences are. And what you said, and what science can observe is just things in the brain, they can say nothing about from where or what does it come from. I learn in my dreams, I see places before I see them in "real life", I see and experience too much things ... I have too much profs to reject it.
All that scientist can observe is the effects in the brain, they can see parts of the brain being active and so. But it is not a proof that it comes from it.
For me the brain is like a radio, or a Tv... If you open your radio or tv you will see what part is active, where the electricity goes... but it is not a proof that all the data, all the information that you see and hear comes from that radio or tv. Like your PC you see all this on your screen, but it does not come from your PC. This text comes from me, not your PC. Your PC recieve it. (Lol yeah I know you know it). For me dreams are recieved by the brain, that's why when we wake up, our dreams are often "mixed up" or not fully downloaded. But of course, I can't prove it scientifically, there is no tools for that. Science is limited, not my experience.

My dream theory is like in the Avatar movie, when you dream you use another body, in another dimension... and that body is connected to the physical brain while alive, and of course that dream body, that dimension is invisible to (actual) science. And when you believe that it is in your brain you limit your experience, you can't expeirence things that you consider impossible.

We assume theories are usually correct because they have substantial evidence supporting them. Yeah, so why there is so much people (who have real experience in dreams), tibetain monks for exemple and so much others, myself included who don't agree with it ? ... When a Theory is as solid as a rock it is no arguable. If it was solid all people would accepted it... like we accepted that the earth is not flat. The fact is that the "dream-brain" theory is incomplete. All that scientist observed is real... but the conclusion is their limited interpretation of their observation. And the Big problem is that 98% humans are ignorant about themselves and dreams, so they accept what they read. They don't think by themselves.

an interesting video about scientific dogmas :


Peace.

This thread caught my interest, because I have actually had the same thought about if dreams really originate from the brain itself.
But the more important question in my opinion, before asking where the dream might originate from. That would have to be, is shared dreaming really possible? I have read some claims about people here on DV who said they have been sharing dreams. But unfortunately that is not enough evidence to claim it's a absolute truth.

But I got to say, that I dont think these people necessarily lie about their experiences. I think shared dreaming might be a possible thing actually. And IF, if shared dreams are real, then where would dreams really take place from then

Tibetain monks practice shared dreams since forever, it is a part of the dream yoga. They are not alone, like you said there is "normal" people who can do it. It wouldn't be possible if dreams originate from the brain. But the thing is that you have to be really good with lucid dreams. There are few people who can do this, because it requires experience, and higher understanding of the mind (not the brain). And it requires a mind who believe it can do it, because when you believe it to be impossible you limit yourself and your dreams. You can dream and live only what you believe to be possible. For exemple there is people who believe that they can't fly and they don't fly in dreams... there is people who believe that dreams are in black and white and it is for them because of their belief, and there is people who believe that they don't dream, they dream but because of that belief they don't memorise it. Our mind is our biggest limitation when we don't understand its laws, espacaly in dreams.

And yeah shared dreams are one of many reasons why I don't accept the actual theory of dreams, thanks for your question

Originally Posted by astralboy

Tibetain monks practice shared dreams since forever, it is a part of the dream yoga. They are not alone, like you said there is "normal" people who can do it. It wouldn't be possible if dreams originate from the brain.

Huh. I didn't know that about tibetan monks practicing deam sharing; and I thought I was pretty well versed in tneir tenets and history, not to mention in dream yoga. Can you tell me why you believe this?

As long as I'm here, can you also tell me why shared-dreaming can't originate in the brain? Seems as good a source as any...

Scientists believe that dreams are in the brain, like the mind. For them dreams and the mind are in the brain.
I understand them because they believe what they see, and they don't have the tools to go beyond physical. But I don't like scientists who fool the people who had experiences, just because it doesn't fit in their limited theory.
If you have some experience and knowledge about your mind you can't believe their theory. Tibetain, or buddhist monks, are the masters of their mind, they know it better than any scientist, because they experience it, scientists just observe with their tools, and judge it with their own limited theories.

In the begining I just read about dream yoga, astral projections, lucid dreams, I didn't have myself these experiences, but with time I experienced so much things... now I don't need any scientific proof. Not because I have blind faith but because of my experience. And I'm not here to make you believe or to have faith in my words lol, but just to make people questioning, to make them more critical about what they read, even if it is science... If you don't believe in what I say it is good, It is good to be critical or sceptical sometimes, but you have to be critical with science too, because they are not "all knowing". Their observations have often many interpretations. Because in science there is always more than one theory, and often it is the most materialistic theory that is accepted as fact. Even for the big bang... not all scientist agree.

Shared dreams would be impossible (in scientific terms) because for them my mind is in my brain and your mind is in your brain, so my dreams are in my head and yours in your head. So what I ask people here is to make their own practice and open their own mind... Believe in your experiences, make your own "scientific" experiences. But of course you have to believe that you can! If you are advanced in dreams you know that you can see only what you think, feel or believe. Your mind, beliefs can be a fences, what you don't accept in your mind will never be possible in your dream or in your life. Because all is mind, even in this physical life (but not in the brain, mind is independant of the brain). The only way to know this is to experience it. And I repeat no matter how much you're a good lucid dreamer and no matter how much lucid dreams you had if you have limited beliefs in your mind, your dreams (or life) will never be higher than your mind... so free your mind, go beyond what others told you to be possible. Nothing is impossible when you're in your dream (astral projection, obe... it is not important how you call it.)

There is so much experiences told on the web, I have many experiences too... but it is meaningless, because you have to expeirence it for yourself. Otherwise it is not your knowledge. So I hope people will at least try what I told here ... Try to do something you have never done, try to believe that you can do something you believed impossible before. If what I told here didn't work you have lost nothing... But if it worked you gained everything, because you understood that there is no limit outside of your own mind, the mind is the only limitation.

The mind is everything. - Budhha

Peace

^^ So, you just believe that the Tibetan monks have been sharing dreams "since forever," based on your own experience? Interesting.

Regarding scientists and the brain: yes, science has established that, as far as they currently know, brain activity is where dreams come from. Now granted they've come to this conclusion through a century or so of hard research, and the consensus among them is quite sound, neurobiologists by no means believe that they have discovered everything. Not by a long shot. Also, scientists have been studying "external" things like brain waves for a very long time, which sort of says that they know there is stuff coming out of a brain... which gets me to my next question:

Given that there is plenty of detectable brain activity physically leaving the brain in the form of brain waves, why can't this energy be the vehicle for dream-sharing? In other words, dreams are created in the brain, but perhaps it is possible to share them outside the brain through the their transmission in brain waves (or something else, but you get my point, I think). In other words, yes, your mind is your mind and mine is mine, but there is constant (if very weak) interaction going on between them in the form of brain waves. I'm just not seeing that saying that a brain creates dreams automatically demands the conclusion that a brain cannot, for instance, share dreams.

Your mind, beliefs can be a fences, what you don't accept in your mind will never be possible in your dream or in your life. Because all is mind, even in this physical life (but not in the brain, mind is independant of the brain). The only way to know this is to experience it. And I repeat no matter how much you're a good lucid dreamer and no matter how much lucid dreams you had if you have limited beliefs in your mind, your dreams (or life) will never be higher than your mind...

But isn't building fences exactly what you are doing here, by categorically rejecting any of the knowledge or wisdom experienced dreamers have imparted to you here? And doing so simply because you've come to accept your personal experience as the basis for all truth? That may sound harsh, but it is exactly what you've done... I sure hope you haven't misinterpreted anything!

I personally believe that science has yet to explore even the tip of the iceberg of consciousness, sentience, memory, and mind. But I'm sure not going to ignore their work simply because they haven't learned anything yet. BTW, one of the leading cutting-edge groups of scientists are those seeking to determine the nature and source of consciousness; there are many people looking very hard for answers, and those people are remarkably open to new concepts or textbook-changing discoveries like an external source for mind. In other words, science has not closed the "truth" book on dreaming or the brain, by any means. Perhaps you should not close the book on them just yet, as well.

Opening your mind is an important thing, I understand that and try to do it as much as possible. But opening your mind is a two-way street. If you're opening your mind to new things, it might not be a good idea to define everything you see solely from the perspective of your own experience. After all, without external input for comparison or temperance, your self-defined interpretations could might stray wildly from reality. There is real danger in this sort of solipsism -- even your Tibetans spend many many years under the careful direction of experienced teachers, just to avoid this sort of thing.

In other words, opening your mind is critical, but simultaneously closing it to other people's experience or wisdom is just as bad as blindly following say, science or religion. Freed minds are still free to assist each other in learning and growth. And given that there is a universe of things to discover (and misinterpret) when opening your mind to all new things, it would be nice to at least have an idea of where to look as you go beyond currently established "givens."

The mind is an incredibly complex thing, and introspection is certainly a major step into exploring it .. but it isn't the only step. For instance, if you spend the next 20 years focusing on a mind that is created and exists outside the brain, and eventually it is proven without a doubt that brains are the progenitor of thoughts, dreaming, mind, and even dream-sharing or AP, you'll have a lot of catching up to do. Try to keep your mind open to everything, and not just your own (obviously very important) discoveries.

Full disclosure: early in my life I spent about a decade refusing to listen to any established knowledge, focusing only on my own experience, which came mostly in the form of advanced LD'ing. That did have its benefits, but it also dramatically slowed my progress on a lot of levels, because there were things I could have learned from others to explain what was going on, and save me the need to spend more decades unlearning so many "truths" I had convinced myself, on my own recognizance, to believe.

More full disclosure: I don't know if you've read any of my posts on these forums, but if you do you'll see that I personally believe there is far, far more to reality than science has yet discovered, and the scientists as yet know almost nothing about consciousness, period. So I'm not here to tout the truths of science.

So, you just believe that the Tibetan monks have been sharing dreams "since forever," based on your own experience? Interesting.

I never said that. Read more about them... you'll find it. And read better my last answer... Like I said I don't ask you to read my experiences or theirs but to experience yourself. Do things that it would be impossible to do if it was only in the brain.

Given that there is plenty of detectable brain activity physically leaving the brain in the form of brain waves, why can't this energy be the vehicle for dream-sharing? In other words, dreams are created in the brain, but perhaps it is possible to share them outside the brain through the their transmission in brain waves (or something else, but you get my point, I think).

Science don't believe in that. For them your mind is only in your brain. Telepathy and all that stuff is illusion... (It is in the video I posted... 10 scientific dogmas.)

But isn't building fences exactly what you are doing here, by categorically rejecting any of the knowledge or wisdom experienced dreamers have imparted to you here? And doing so simply because you've come to accept your personal experience as the basis for all truth? That may sound harsh, but it is exactly what you've done... I sure hope you haven't misinterpreted anything!


I talked about limitations. How do you want me to accept something inferior to my experience... For exemple if I first saw real places in my dream before I saw them in real life and so much more ... how do you want me to accept their theory.

In other words, opening your mind is critical, but simultaneously closing it to other people's experience or wisdom is just as bad as blindly following say, science or religion. Freed minds are still free to assist each other in learning and growth. And given that there is a universe of things to discover (and misinterpret) when opening your mind to all new things, it would be nice to at least have an idea of where to look as you go beyond currently established "givens."

I'm very open about people's dreams experiences.
Science observations of the brain is not "dream experience"... they just observe the brain. It is not dream experience. They have no experience. Exemple : Even if you observe what happen in your Tv, you will stay ignorant about from where all the images and sounds come from.
The real pros and scientist of dreams are Tibetain monks because they have experience... Not scientists. And they practice that science since forever like I said, and they believe, they KNOW that it is not in the brain.

I respect your beliefs... But just one question :
Why Tibetain Monks, who have so much experience, why do they don't accept the actual scientific theory ? Do you know that a theory is temparary, not always true ?

Originally Posted by astralboy

So, you just believe that the Tibetan monks have been sharing dreams "since forever," based on your own experience? Interesting.

I never said that. Read more about them... you'll find it.

I have read quite a bit about Tibetan monks .. I've even met a couple and spoken in-depth with them. I've also been practicing a version of dream yoga for some 20 years now, and yet I still have found nothing that implies that they have been sharing dreams forever, or are even inclined to share dreams. If you have you any sources I might read to expand my knowledge, I'd appreciate the opportunity to fill in this apparently yawning gap.

And read better my last answer... Like I said I don't ask you to read my experiences or theirs but to experience yourself. Do things that it would be impossible to do if it was only in the brain.

Ah, but you do ask me to read your experiences, because you have already stated that your experiences are the basis for all you hold true. After all, it is your experience that asusmes dreams form outside the brain, isn't it? If I don't listen to your experiences, how will I know to explore my own limits?

Oh, and I actually already do push the envelope of my own experience and reality regularly (mostly through LD'ing), for what its worth... a feat I can manage while still assuming someone else might own some truth as well. Funny thing, though: In all my years of explorations, and as much as I would have liked to see it as true, I have found zero evidence that dreams are produced outside the brain. This is in spite of many perceived dream-sharing, AP, and OBE experiences. In all my searching I have yet to have a need to say that it's an either/or situation -- that dreams must be produced outside the brain for those "supernatural" things to happen. Indeed, I've been coming closer to concluding that the brain is the source of our mind, our dreams, and all that other stuff as well. I also am coming to conclude that this source is only the beginning: Sure, the brain may be the headwaters to our souls, but it doesn't necessarily permanently encase our souls.

Given that there is plenty of detectable brain activity physically leaving the brain in the form of brain waves, why can't this energy be the vehicle for dream-sharing? In other words, dreams are created in the brain, but perhaps it is possible to share them outside the brain through the their transmission in brain waves (or something else, but you get my point, I think).

Science don't believe in that. For them your mind is only in your brain. Telepathy and all that stuff is illusion... (It is in the video I posted... 10 scientific dogmas.)

As Dutchraptor already said quite well, science doesn't "believe" anything. To assume it does is to misunderstand the very nature of science and the scientific process. Responsible scientists also don't dismiss things as illusion, whether they've been proven or not. To assume that they do is quite telling, again. Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to base my take on the scientific process on a Rupert Sheldrake Youtube video. Nobody should.

I talked about limitations. How do you want me to accept something inferior to my experience... For exemple if I first saw real places in my dream before I saw them in real life and so much more ... how do you want me to accept their theory.

How do you know that something is inferior to your experience, when all you have is your own interpretation of your experience to guide you? For instance, how do you know you saw those real places for the first time in your dreams, or, in reverse, how do you know your memory isn't tricking you to believe that you saw a new place before, in your dreams? Something you might consider is that the phenomenal ability of humans to misinterpret their experiences is one reason science originally emerged.

I don't want you to accept any theory, BTW, I really don't care what you accept. What I'm suggesting though, is that you try to understand that personal experience can be fraught with misinterpretation, especially if you hold whatever happens to you as true first, and then work backwords from there (that BTW, is something the Tibetans teach too). Sometimes outside opinion and experience, including science, can help you in your interpretations. I had initially thought that was why you started this thread, but I guess not, huh?

The real pros and scientist of dreams are Tibetain monks because they have experience... Not scientists. And they practice that science since forever like I said, and they believe, they KNOW that it is not in the brain.

Again, I would appreciate it if you shared your source for this. Yes, some (not all) Tibetan monks expand their awareness into their dreams (aka, LD'ing) to a great degree, and certainly have a far more extensive knowledge of the direct experience of dreams than does science. I'm not arguing that; I don't think anyone was. But I've never heard them say they "KNOW" that dreaming is not formed in the brain, or at least associated with the dreamer's physical form. Indeed, it is pretty damn hard to get a dream yogi to say he knows anything, much less something so concrete.

I respect your beliefs

I haven't shared my beliefs, but thank you!

Why Tibetain Monks, who have so much experience, why do they don't accept the actual scientific theory ? Do you know that a theory is temparary, not always true ?

Who says they don't?

They seem to be okay with much of what science has discovered about the physical world. Remember, they eat, breathe, and make more Tibetans just like the rest of us, and the science behind their physical lives is quite clear and acceptable to them. They may have different opinions about the sources for those physical facts, certainly, and they surely assume there is much more beyond what science has explained (as do I), and thus find the discoveries of science quite small and meaningless, perhaps quaint. But not unacceptable.

Also, I'm not sure you understand that there is a difference between physical fact and theory. Theory is just one part of the scientific process; not its definition.

I think I must echo Dutchraptor's opinion that this discussion is indeed over because you're clearly not interested in having your OP question answered. Your desire seems to be to tell us all that there is no evidence, nor can there ever be, that dreaming comes from the brain. That's fine, but I wish you had made it more clear that your OP was a rhetorical question and you had no interest in having it discussed by experienced dreamers -- then I would not have wasted my time here.

Good luck in your search, Astralboy; keep that mind open, and the truth will find you eventually...

I can tell you one thing and if you don't really think about this then this discussion is over since you are not here to actually discuss anything.

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

We use science to make assumptions based on probabilities. Anything is possible according to science, some things are just more likely by our current knowledge. We rely on science in this day and age because it's reliable.

A true scientist will not disregard anything that you have said. So that stop attacking science like it's some type of evil doctrine. It's a way of discovering new ideas and it happens to be very effective, and it will highly likely discover whether or not anything you have said is true in the future.

Science has it's flaws when dealing with things like consciousness, only because it is made to give a strong explanation. What seems like an inadequacy now will later lead to a theory that will be refined to perfection.

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.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

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.

I believe that is already being done, DreamyBear. Indeed, several Tibetan (and Hindu, and Zen, etc) have offered themselves up to study, so that science can get a better feel for their perspective and experiences on consciousness. That scientists are willing to work with such mystics, and vice-versa, tells me a lot about the human need to learn, and to get it right, I think.

Likewise, the Bardo Thodol, or Tibetan Book of the Dead, has been extensively studied by Western Scientists and philosophers, to the point where researchers sat at the feet of Tibetan lamas to not only get a good translation of the book (a true rarity, BTW), but also to understand the nuance behind its words and to learn about the deeper stuff that was left out of the editions originally made available to the public. This kind of cooperation is what learning, and science, is about, I think!

Also, more to topic: I've read it thoroughly, and there is nothing in the Bardo that implies that dreams exist outside the brain.

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

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.

This is actually really interesting me now - I hate it, when people say things like "The Tibetan Monks do this and that forever" without any sources at all.
Since I too - the too here cheekily assuming, you have neither - since I too have never read any texts from said monks - I would ask you, to please go ahead and cite the sources on which you base your assertions.

I might end up acknowledging that there are indeed such sources - it would honestly interest me.
So - please indulge us - it seems Sageous has read respective texts and even talked to actual living specimens and very much doubts your assertions.

So - over to you - go ahead and tell us, where you have read that and bring in a citation.
Thanks in advance!

Sageous, I get the feeling that you got a pretty good knowledge about this buddhist monks according to your experience. Im pleased with your answear about how scientists have started to take an interest in buddhist teachings. But I just get the impression that scientists doesn't putting especially much attention in these probably important life-questions. The monks have probably coming much closer to the core-theories or answears about all these so called "supernatural" stuff about life. Dont you agree with me that science at least need take a much bigger step in to the spiriual teachings, and maybe therefore have to start rely more on the counts of peoples experiences?

Well back to the main topic then There is probably no kind of scientific evidences in the world acording to the name of science, that either shared dreaming works or ever have worked, or if dreams always occur from the brain itself. But that just why this question arises I believe, at least it is for me. So I would absolute not claim that either shared dreaming or whether dreams could occur from some where else is true in any way. BUT, I get curious when I read those personal experiences people have when it comes to shared dreaming or that they claim that they have seen the future in dreams etc. What if sharing dreams really is possible then? So what do YOU, think about these gathered storys you probably heard of?? I dont know if a real scientist would find it interesting even if he would be told about 50 unlikely events like these. but that's my impression.

Haha I missed the main question after all but I think that shared dreaming would be the first mysterie to solve before speculating in where dreams might occur from, if not the brain.

Originally Posted by DreamyBear

Sageous, I get the feeling that you got a pretty good knowledge about this buddhist monks according to your experience. Im pleased with your answear about how scientists have started to take an interest in buddhist teachings. But I just get the impression that scientists doesn't putting especially much attention in these probably important life-questions. The monks have probably coming much closer to the core-theories or answears about all these so called "supernatural" stuff about life. Dont you agree with me that science at least need take a much bigger step in to the spiriual teachings, and maybe therefore have to start rely more on the counts of peoples experiences?

Well back to the main topic then There is probably no kind of scientific evidences in the world acording to the name of science, that either shared dreaming works or ever have worked, or if dreams always occur from the brain itself. But that just why this question arises I believe, at least it is for me. So I would absolute not claim that either shared dreaming or whether dreams could occur from some where else is true in any way. BUT, I get curious when I read those personal experiences people have when it comes to shared dreaming or that they claim that they have seen the future in dreams etc. What if sharing dreams really is possible then? So what do YOU, think about these gathered storys you probably heard of?? I dont know if a real scientist would find it interesting even if he would be told about 50 unlikely events like these. but that's my impression.

Actually there have been a lot of studies into telepathy and shared dreaming. Nothing has ever been exclusively proved, but there have been studies that have returned values that cannot be explained through chance alone. The scientific world is on these things more than you can imagine. A large reason why a lot of these studies never get started or come to light is because generally studies on esoteric concepts aren't well received (mainly by ignorant other scientists) and can shed bad light onto the authors. It's shame that it is this way but at least there are people trying, because every time some controversial study does produce good results it makes the rest of the scientific community more lenient towards them and we can get a step closer to pure science and a more accurate theory.

Thank you all for your contribution.

Tibetains use lucid dreaming like a spiritual tool. For them lucid dreaming is a training for the after death. And they use it to reach "illumination". There is books on that like "the tibetain book of death and living". They have a full science of lucid dreaming.

But the goal of my thread was to say this ;

Scientific FACT : While we dream there is visible effects in the brain, we can observe them. There is no contradiction. And no one can argue with this!

INTERPRETATION of that fact : When you ask yourself : what does it mean? Is this an Evidence (with big E) that dreams are created by the brain? Or It may be possible that they are recieved by the brain? Because nothing contradicts it.

CONCLUSION : If you accept that they are created by the brain... It it not really scientific thinking because there is no evidence, and there is others interpretations possible, for exemple : dreams may be recieved by the brain.
What science should say is : WE DON'T KNOW. But we know that dreams have effects on the brain, and that they are "connected" to it. That is a scientific answer because what they observe isn't enough to make conclusions. Especally when there is so much people with experiences that are incompatible with their theory... Seeing a text on your screent isn't an evidence that it originate from it.

So you see my goal is to share my point of view of their conclusion. I'm not here to say "I'm right, not you." But you have to admit that based on scientific observations others interpretation may be possible. There is many "big minds" who think that our brain is a reciever. Nikola Tesla... Just to say one name.

Originally Posted by astralboy

Tibetains use lucid dreaming like a spiritual tool. For them lucid dreaming is a training for the after death. And they use it to reach "illumination". There is books on that like "the tibetain book of death and living". They have a full science of lucid dreaming.

That's all true, except of course that that book is called The Tibetan Book of the Dead (in case anyone wants to do a search for it), and also that Tibetan lamas, much less the dream yogis, would never claim or desire to have a "full science" of anything, as they have little interest in empirical knowledge. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, and the Tibetans' spiritual search might ultimately trump science (and it would be cool if it did!), but they really do not use any scientific process, so they have no science of dreams. Maybe that was a translation issue?

Though I appreciate your explanation, I am disappointed that you didn't share where you learned that Tibetan monks "practice shared dreams since forever, it is a part of the dream yoga," because I really was curious. Oh well, I guess it was making us stray from your OP, wasn't it? So back to business?

But the goal of my thread was to say this ;

Scientific FACT : While we dream there is visible effects in the brain, we can observe them. There is no contradiction. And no one can argue with this!

INTERPRETATION of that fact : When you ask yourself : what does it mean? Is this an Evidence (with big E) that dreams are created by the brain? Or It may be possible that they are recieved by the brain? Because nothing contradicts it.

CONCLUSION : If you accept that they are created by the brain... It it not really scientific thinking because there is no evidence, and there is others interpretations possible, for exemple : dreams may be recieved by the brain.
What science should say is : WE DON'T KNOW. But we know that dreams have effects on the brain, and that they are "connected" to it. That is a scientific answer because what they observe isn't enough to make conclusions. Especally when there is so much people with experiences that are incompatible with their theory... Seeing a text on your screent isn't an evidence that it originate from it.

Okay. In the name of breaking us away from the "I'm right, you're wrong" loop in which we were all uselessly circling, I'd like to ask a question.

Let's say we accept your premise above. If it is not originated by the brain, and the brain is merely a conduit for dream energy/information, from where then do dreams come? What is their origin?