It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What makes "Reality" real?

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
This will help science finally explore innerspace objectively assuming they can then move to dreams and other thoughts from this science.

medicalxpress.com...

Your claim if hooked up to this dream-recording potential technology could then be verified which leads to the question of independence to your dreaming of it in your dreamworld. Lucid dreaming shows that we control the dream content, therefore we must be creating all the dream content including the sparrow so it is dependent on you, the dreamer to exist as a dreamed of sparrow.

The sparrow now exists in “Cognitive Reality” which occurred in physical reality say in March 12, 2010 at 4:25am. In that period of time, the sparrow exists as subjective dream data. If science could traverse time and read minds, theoretically it could then objectify once again this dreamed of sparrow from that time period thus stating in a small micro-window of time this dreamed of sparrow did indeed exist within a dream. Does that make the sparrow real? Yes, in context of the dream world, the sparrow as a dream artifact, existed. Was it an atomized sparrow, and a physically living-system? No. It is strictly organized thoughts forming objectivity within a simulation created by a dreaming mind.

However, having explored dreaming lucidly for over 24 years I have stumbled upon extremely rare circumstances where what I have dreamed was also shared with other people that I knew who dreamed of the same or similar dream. And I have observed other people at work talk about a dream, only to discover all three of them had the same dream and were describing the same details. This is known to several members of the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Dr. Robert Waggoner, Dr. Ed Kellog, Dr. Lynda Magelleon all have written on this subject. How do we know if that sparrow and you were not sharing the dream? Where is objectivity and subjectivity in a dreamworld when mutual dreaming is revealed? Most would skeptically argue impossible, but I will argue with first-hand experience plausible. Certainly a need for more research is required.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
To apply your principle further, do the hallucinations of a psychotic exist ontologically? If so, do they reside in this realm, or another? What about the visions of somehow high on acid? Are the walls really melting, in some way that is real outside of the trippers mind?


Again, we are seeing data rendered in the cognitive reality that is subjective to the observer. The above MRI technology will help in the future to objectify potentially hallucinations. The wall in physical reality is not melting, but how the mind is canvasing the wall certainly makes the wall appear to be thus. It is really melting to that observer, but only as a hallucination. The hallucination is really happening, but the objective atomized wall is as everyone else observes it, unchanged.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
The above examples are for sure very real to the people experiencing them. Does their belief in them *make them real*? If so, how could we know either way? What is the negative proof? At what point can we say to ourselves 'well, this guy swears up and down that an invisible dragon lives on his shoulders, and his brainscans indicate that he is indeed perceiving something there. But no other measurement can detect what he claims to be real, and thus we must assume that the dragon he sees exists inside his own broken mind, and nowhere else in physical and objective reality'?


These are really strong points on dealing with how subjective experiences are real to the individual. The experiences are very real, but that does not make them relative to physical reality. In cognitive reality, we can create anything we can imagine because the restrictive nature of atoms, gravity, thermal dynamics need not apply. Physical reality is bound by natural law and has a defined physics to it.

In dreams, we create a physics engine, collision detection and can even experience clipping as we walk through walls and defy the laws of physics because technically, there are none. We define the laws which govern how a thought-driven reality-system such as dreams behave.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIf I am dreaming, are you a figment of my imagination?


This is actually a good question and I had a dream this morning relative to it.

Today, I had a lucid dream where I was talking to a female dream character and told her that it was a dream. She didn't believe me, but then I told her to look closer and changed the canvasing to create more fractal patterns. She looked at me scared and said how could she be dreaming? I told her she dreams all the time. How can she not be dreaming. Then I told her, “I am dreaming also, which begs the question, am I dreaming you or are you dreaming me?”




posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
She was completely confused and I said we are both dreaming of each-other.

Now there is one more can-of-worms relative to dreams and physical objective reality that I want to put focus on which is precognitive dreaming. Where a person has a dream that later comes true, days, weeks, months and even years after dreaming it.

Having again observed this relationship between dreams and reality many times over in my life, I am quite comfortable in talking about it as a matter of fact; although many would skeptically argue impossible. That said, research into it has been on going since 1888, and it has been debated by Aristotle in 350BC, and talked about in nearly every religion. Evidence of it has emerged in dream research studies throughout the years. Due to the lack of the MRI technology to objectify the evidence is always considered weak and thus hardened sceptics still deny it possible. Suffice to say, they also said the same about lucid dreaming back in 1958 and where proven dead wrong when science finally objectified measurements indicating brainwave patterns and eye movements can be recorded to show lucidity in the late 1970's. I consider lucid dreaming, shared dreaming and precognitive dreaming all part of this potential revelation to objective science come more breakthroughs in externalizing dream data to get hard empirical evidence such as actual images that will link up.

Fortunately, through first-hand experience I do not have to wait for the mass body of science to finally accept these as facts. So I can start to examine the implications of them today.

If I dream of something, which is entirely a thought-driven mind-generated pattern. And it comes true weeks later... what is the relationship between that dream, and the reality that it represents when the dream comes true?



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_SerfOne can view reality in anyway one wants, be it that some god ejaculated us into existence, that the sun gave birth to the earth, or that space pirates from another dimension seeded our planet, only to return one day as our masters.

The problem with such 'ideas' is that they dont rely on a scrap of evidence or logic. (in the same way that Plutonic forms came fully formed out of Platos left armpit.) There is simply no evidence or reason to believe that reality is some sort of hologram, regardless of the numerous elegant theories that state so.


I'm not fond of the Holographic idea to model out reality, although the GEO600 experiment provided evidence predicted by Craig Hogan that gravity waves would behave like holograms based on his predictions, and so far it cannot be ruled out.

www.sciencedaily.com...


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If it is indeed your contention that reality is indeed unreal, and you of course realize that this theory flies in the face of every moment of every day of our waking sensual experience, you of course know that youre making an incredibly wild and counter intuitive assertion of truth. This is not to say youre wrong, of course, as saying the earth was round seemed to our ancestors as totally counter intuitive. It just means that you will require incredible evidence, or at a least logically consistent theory, to support your claim.


I am certainly not saying that "reality" is unreal. It is very real. Rather, I am looking at other relationships with the idea of reality, such as dreams. More so, how we exist within these relationships as the observer.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIf the world is indeed a hologram, how would we know this to be true? What observation could be made to support this? What evidence would disprove it?

If reality is a perfect hologram, and the holographic nature of existence is indistinguishable from actual existence, couldnt the two be described as the same thing?


The Holographic hypothesis is plausible, again both mathematically supported as well as having some indicators scientifically.

The physical world as a virtual reality is also plausible, that reality could be composed of probabilistic information that must collapse into objectivity through a server-client relationship. There is an abstract from a Mathematician Brian Whitworth where he raises conjecture on this possible origin of the Universe. Again, many of the strange physics in the physical model are predicted and explained in the virtual model.

arxiv.org...

In Quantum Mechanics we do have wave-function collapse and particle/wave duality that can argue that an observer collapses reality from wave-function into objective atoms. In all of the states of superposition that electrons can be in, it suggests a myriad of probable outcomes exist until measured where by only one measured state becomes the actual reality. Thus all other states of superposition could be actualized probable reality within quantum measurements. David Bohm gets into this in his Implicate Order, Erwin Schrodinger muses about it with his Cat paradox thought experiment.

I know of both physicists and mathematicians that support virtual reality theory as being much more sound then the Big Bang theory in that the math and how they are observing quantum mechanics supports it. Nick Bolstrom, John Wheeler, Max Tegmark, Brian Whitworth, Tom Campbell and the list goes on. A lot of them are listed in the wiki article on digital physics.

en.wikipedia.org...

So these are not wishful thinkers rather very intelligent people at the heart of such ideas based on both math and evidence.

I differ from even them as my bridge into cosmology and reality theory includes these three fundamental elements.

1.) The Observer.
2.) The Dream.
3.) The Reality.

All of which involve every single one of us, and I strive to understand it. It is also plausible from precognitive dream experiences that our physical reality could be a scaled up dream. That we all could be co-creating this reality through a process of dreaming that somehow scales up and affects, no... creates the physical world.

There are very few that support such a notion, but physicist Dr. Fred Allan Wolf who wrote, "The Dreaming Universe", Dr. Alberto Villoldo who wrote "Courageous Dreaming" certainly do. Not to mention the Vedas, Gnostic Christianity, the Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans have similar beliefs.

For myself, I am weighing in on observations made through lucid precognitive dreaming to bridge that revelation into a dream/reality dualism relative to the observer (dreamer).



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


ones observed reality....has the chain of events known as 'Laws' become engaged... it can be chemical reactions, or just the Laws of Physics or else matter reacting to a cause is underway...also the rules & laws of Mathematics are in a process of changing according to the rules...


anything that is not reacting to a cause or disrupting action could not be considered a reality but rather a theory and plain old subjective reality


The ideology of the Jewish Sadducees is a example


in as the spirit world is non existant, only empiracle evidence works, pragmatism and practical world reality is the true/factual nature of 'real'... all the other abstract worlds are not but fictions
edit on 19-10-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

What makes "Reality" real?

You do.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 


ones observed reality....has the chain of events known as 'Laws' become engaged... it can be chemical reactions, or just the Laws of Physics or else matter reacting to a cause is underway...also the rules & laws of Mathematics are in a process of changing according to the rules...


Science drives hard to understand the rules. This is how we are unlocking the rules of "reality" and creating sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, and math. Science defines reality based on objective rules and thanks to science that has allowed for amazing technological breakthroughs like harnessing electricity and atoms for energy.

Reality embodies all the sciences, and it embodies each of us as it's participants. This equilibrium of reality and the observer is a very wonderful and profound relationship. In a way, we present reality with a tool by which it can experience itself. As a human, we experience reality and interconnectedness with it. We are a part of it, and it is a part of us.

No complaints, it's quite fantastic really.


Originally posted by St Udio
anything that is not reacting to a cause or disrupting action could not be considered a reality but rather a theory and plain old subjective reality

The ideology of the Jewish Sadducees is a example

in as the spirit world is non existant, only empiracle evidence works, pragmatism and practical world reality is the true/factual nature of 'real'... all the other abstract worlds are not but fictions
edit on 19-10-2011 by St Udio because: (no reason given)


Yet, through dreaming each human exists in abstract worlds of fiction. Yet, real to the dreamer. Another branch in the human experience with reality.

Abstract, virtual dream realities... purely fictional yet real until we wake up. I love it.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
This is really an awesome post and totally clarifies for me your ideas on the matter. And not to throw around compliments overly, but I gotta say I find your writing style very engaging and laser like in its precision~ Im glad I didnt make my common mistake of writing you off as a new age type (as i myself having once been a new ager, I have a certain amount of well earned contempt for that line of thinking's revamped irrational mysticism) Beautiful writing though.

Not that my judgement or praise of you means anything, of course. jus' sayin'~



Your claim if hooked up to this dream-recording potential technology could then be verified which leads to the question of independence to your dreaming of it in your dreamworld. Lucid dreaming shows that we control the dream content, therefore we must be creating all the dream content including the sparrow so it is dependent on you, the dreamer to exist as a dreamed of sparrow.


Thanks for clarifying. Of course we agree that it is true that people dream of stuff, and they arent all lying when they report on said stuff.



The sparrow now exists in “Cognitive Reality” which occurred in physical reality say in March 12, 2010 at 4:25am. In that period of time, the sparrow exists as subjective dream data. If science could traverse time and read minds, theoretically it could then objectify once again this dreamed of sparrow from that time period thus stating in a small micro-window of time this dreamed of sparrow did indeed exist within a dream. Does that make the sparrow real? Yes, in context of the dream world, the sparrow as a dream artifact, existed. Was it an atomized sparrow, and a physically living-system? No. It is strictly organized thoughts forming objectivity within a simulation created by a dreaming mind.


Im glad, and a little relieved that youve helped me understand your position a little clearer here. If you had told me that my sparrow existed in some way objectively, or with the capacity to be observed or to affect another consciousness, as I mistakenly thought you perhaps were implying, then at that point I may have had to walk away slooowly from this discussion. That or I may have demanded some sort of evidence to back up the wild claim that subjective experience and objective reality are somehow the same.

And then you stated the following:



However, having explored dreaming lucidly for over 24 years I have stumbled upon extremely rare circumstances where what I have dreamed was also shared with other people that I knew who dreamed of the same or similar dream.


Now it seems to me that your implying that your lucid dreams do in fact have some tangible existence in 3d reality that can effect the consciousness of others in a measurable way. The above implies that youve blurred the line between objective reality and 'cognitive reality'. Youve also put forward a testable hypothesis in that these effects should be measurable and repeatable in some way. If what youre saying is true, then great! Not only would it be the single most important discovery of all time, but you yourself would be a millionaire, as there is an open pot of $1 000 000 to anyone who can prove to the Amazing Randy the existence of supernatural or psychic phenomenon.

If what you describe above is indeed true, an experiment could indeed be designed to pick up and measure the non randomness of some interplay between 'cognitive reality' and just plain ol reality.

Im not kidding when I say it would be super cool to have some reason to believe that consciousness in some way extended beyond the brain. Such an observation, and a working theory to describe it, would be the single biggest break though in human understanding ever. Which is exactly why I will require some serious and incontrovertible evidence to prove to me that this is the case. You anecdotal story, while cool, doesnt satisfy my admittedly high bar in this regard.



And I have observed other people at work talk about a dream, only to discover all three of them had the same dream and were describing the same details. This is known to several members of the International Association for the Study of Dreams. Dr. Robert Waggoner, Dr. Ed Kellog, Dr. Lynda Magelleon all have written on this subject. How do we know if that sparrow and you were not sharing the dream? Where is objectivity and subjectivity in a dreamworld when mutual dreaming is revealed? Most would skeptically argue impossible, but I will argue with first-hand experience plausible. Certainly a need for more research is required.


If it could be shown via the scientific method that similar dream experiences can occur above random and are caused by some sort of telekinetic exchange via some yet unknown force, this would be fantastic. How cool would that be? But until this can be shown, I have no choice but to accept our current understanding of the atomized mind.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   


She was completely confused and I said we are both dreaming of each-other.


As am I! Are you claiming some sort of telepathic communication? Does 'cognitive reality' interact with, and leave a measurable impression upon objective reality?

If so, Im sure you realize that the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. And again, if you can provide evidence to back up your experience which proves it is non coincidental and non random, you should claim your million bux and perhaps win the nobel prize in some new category.

Just to be clear because intent is easy to misinterpret via text - the above is intended with the least possible sarcasm or prickishness. I genuinely wish what you are saying could be true. But opinions and assertions are next to meaningless in the quest for truth.



Now there is one more can-of-worms relative to dreams and physical objective reality that I want to put focus on which is precognitive dreaming. Where a person has a dream that later comes true, days, weeks, months and even years after dreaming it.


Im sorry, and i of course could totally be wrong, but i see no evidence to support the fantastic claim that humans can see the future, and logically, to me anyways, this would seem impossible as it would negate free will. Since i experience free will on a moment to moment, sensual basis, any negation of this most basic experience of mine, and everyone else, must have more evidence behind it than the scribblings of half starved monks. ( i realize im being dismissive here, no disrespect intended. but fantastic claims require fantastic proof if we are to move forward rationally.)

But to be honest, i myself have experience a few precognitive dreams, and so i certainly wont dismiss the notion out of hand.



Having again observed this relationship between dreams and reality many times over in my life, I am quite comfortable in talking about it as a matter of fact;


As one who keeps a dream book and values the window into the subconscious that dreams provide, i totally agree that dreams are not random images but instead hyper sophisticated holo movies projected by the subconscious to the conscious that can yield immense and profound wisdom. I dont agree that it is a 'fact' that humans can predict the future, though. if this were the case i would expect some body of research showing this to come up as more than and intuitive good guess or sheer randomness. if such evidence exists, id like to see it. (not that im competent to judge the validity of peer reviewed studies)



That said, research into it has been on going since 1888, and it has been debated by Aristotle in 350BC, and talked about in nearly every religion. Evidence of it has emerged in dream research studies throughout the years. Due to the lack of the MRI technology to objectify the evidence is always considered weak and thus hardened sceptics still deny it possible.


hehe im not sure if you cleverly threw in 'The Philosopher' to sway me after judging from my sig that i love the 'Stoltle'. but he also believed in the gods of his day, as did the religious people you site believe in their own gods, and so i honestly cant take the word of the ancients as binding on this most potentially profound matter.

If this phenomenon is real, it should be testable and repeatable.



Suffice to say, they also said the same about lucid dreaming back in 1958 and where proven dead wrong when science finally objectified measurements indicating brainwave patterns and eye movements can be recorded to show lucidity in the late 1970's.


The ability to become conscious and control ones dreams (and the few times i have experienced it, it was AWESOME!) does not violate the known laws or properties of matter and energy. Consciousness projecting and effecting outside of the mind does. This is not to say it is impossible. It would just require unquestionable proof, repeatability, and some theory to describe it in order for a layman such as myself to accept this fundamental rewriting of out collective understanding of reality.

So far I havent seen that.



I consider lucid dreaming, shared dreaming and precognitive dreaming all part of this potential revelation to objective science come more breakthroughs in externalizing dream data to get hard empirical evidence such as actual images that will link up.


It will be interesting to see, for sure! Its my understanding that the downloading of dreams into visual data is not far off!



Fortunately, through first-hand experience I do not have to wait for the mass body of science to finally accept these as facts. So I can start to examine the implications of them today.


Have you designed a testable hypothesis to confirm or deny your opinions? Have you honestly explored the possibility that you may be self selecting positive results and discarding or ignoring negative ones?

Im curious!
edit on 22-10-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 





I'm not fond of the Holographic idea to model out reality, although the GEO600 experiment provided evidence predicted by Craig Hogan that gravity waves would behave like holograms based on his predictions, and so far it cannot be ruled out.


I have no way of either validating of rejecting the claims of this person you mention, or the experiment you site. Even if you linked me to it, i dont posses the scientific or technical knowledge to even being to evaluate these claims. my only guide posts can be logic, the general consensus of experts with far greater expertise than me (and yes i know the inherent flaws in an appeal to authority, im an anarchist ffs~) and my own sensual experience which is based on free will. if my behavior was predictable with any high degree of accuracy, i would have to reject the idea of free will and all the implications that would logically follow from that. (mainly the loss of any kind of moral responsibility for my actions, or anyones)

So ill admit i have an emotional stake in this game, not that that means anything. if my actions were indeed predictable, that would imply that i do not posses the capacity to change my future and thus the cornerstone of my entire philosophical world view, which i hold to be logically sound, and empirically verified, would be shattered to dust.

That im uncomfortable with that notion does not, of course, invalidate what youre saying. Im just saying that it flies contrary to every rational first principle ive been able to salvage from the wreck of the mind that is considered 'normal' human thinking. So perhaps youll get more of a fight out of me than if you were instead proposing the existence of some new particle, or some other theory of matter and energy that had no bearing on the way we should behave as humans.

If the future is predictable, it cannot change.



I am certainly not saying that "reality" is unreal. It is very real. Rather, I am looking at other relationships with the idea of reality, such as dreams. More so, how we exist within these relationships as the observer.


Does reality exist without an 'observer', in your view?



The Holographic hypothesis is plausible, again both mathematically supported as well as having some indicators scientifically. The physical world as a virtual reality is also plausible, that reality could be composed of probabilistic information that must collapse into objectivity through a server-client relationship. There is an abstract from a Mathematician Brian Whitworth where he raises conjecture on this possible origin of the Universe. Again, many of the strange physics in the physical model are predicted and explained in the virtual model.


If it could be shown that the universe is indeed a 'hologram' of some kind, and not by some elegant but fundamentally mad mathematical equation, but instead incontrovertible physical evidence...what would this imply? how would your behavior change?



Erwin Schrodinger muses about it with his Cat paradox thought experiment.


Many years ago I read a book called 'whos afraid of schrodingers box' which turned me onto all of the seeming paradoxes of quantum physics. i only 1/4 understood it of course, and i still take a laymans interest in reading up on the latest quantum findings.

im just not sure i see the link between 'quantum weirdness' and this dreamscape you describe.

the dots im connecting currently are the ones i can see, touch and understand. perhaps my scope is limited.



I know of both physicists and mathematicians that support virtual reality theory as being much more sound then the Big Bang theory in that the math and how they are observing quantum mechanics supports it. Nick Bolstrom, John Wheeler, Max Tegmark, Brian Whitworth, Tom Campbell and the list goes on. A lot of them are listed in the wiki article on digital physics.


I honestly know none of these names, and perhaps i should if i want to be able to discuss this topic competently. But i dont. Im still hung up on your claim of future predictability. Surely, if it is at all possible, bright minds like these could design some sort of triple blind, gold standard peer review study to prove or disprove the phenomenon youre describing. The incentive to do so would be incalculable - the first person to bring forth a theory of extra - cranial mind influence would go down in the annals of human achievement with no peer.

+ theyd win a million bux from the amazing randy heheh~



1.) The Observer. 2.) The Dream. 3.) The Reality.


These wouldnt be equal to me and would go in order from cause to effect:
1:the reality > 2: the observer > 3: the dream



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 

What makes "Reality" real?

You do.



No amount of
will make this true!~



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
I was always a fan of the fact the variables of the world made it more illusion then reality.

But the experiences of it are the only reality. What you make of it. is you reality.

The fundamental flaw in trying to find the seam with the tag "made by" in reality is that the best equipment you have are your faculties... And its already been shown a few suggestions can change this.

Grappling the truth out of some defense or need to know is quite simply beyond the template of mortal man.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   


Again, we are seeing data rendered in the cognitive reality that is subjective to the observer. The above MRI technology will help in the future to objectify potentially hallucinations. The wall in physical reality is not melting, but how the mind is canvasing the wall certainly makes the wall appear to be thus. It is really melting to that observer, but only as a hallucination. The hallucination is really happening, but the objective atomized wall is as everyone else observes it, unchanged.


so the hallucination, and the dream, exist *only* within the mind?



These are really strong points on dealing with how subjective experiences are real to the individual. The experiences are very real, but that does not make them relative to physical reality. In cognitive reality, we can create anything we can imagine because the restrictive nature of atoms, gravity, thermal dynamics need not apply. Physical reality is bound by natural law and has a defined physics to it.


So the experience youre describing is 100% subjective and exists only in the mind of the experiencee?

This would seem to conflate the distinction between the words 'fantasy' and 'reality'. Fantasy is described as that which exists solely in the mind, while reality is defined as that which exists independently of our minds. If the two are not the same thing, the proper term might be something like 'cognitive fantasy'.

to say that which has opposing properties to reality is the same as reality is to say that no distinction exists between that which is imagined and that which is measured.

to me, this is a fundamentally mystical approach and is inherently self contradictory. unless you redefine 'cognitive reality' as 'cognitive fantasy'.



In dreams, we create a physics engine, collision detection and can even experience clipping as we walk through walls and defy the laws of physics because technically, there are none. We define the laws which govern how a thought-driven reality-system such as dreams behave.


youre toootally speaking my nerd language now which is awesome. but dreams, i think, like games, are pure fantasy of the mind.



This is actually a good question and I had a dream this morning relative to it. Today, I had a lucid dream where I was talking to a female dream character and told her that it was a dream. She didn't believe me, but then I told her to look closer and changed the canvasing to create more fractal patterns. She looked at me scared and said how could she be dreaming? I told her she dreams all the time. How can she not be dreaming. Then I told her, “I am dreaming also, which begs the question, am I dreaming you or are you dreaming me?”


hehe the last time i had a lucid dream, many years ago now, one of the first things i did was to ask someone from my dream 'do you realize that i dreamed you up?' to which he responded 'do you realize i dreamed *you* up?'

upon further reflection, it seems i was right.



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


The mind 'exists' within the dream.
But can you see a mind? Or is it imagination? Thoughts arise and if fed and watered they will create a world of fantasy.
Reality is always present that's why the mind can not see it, the mind can only work with past and future, ifs, buts and maybes, it has no use of now as it is.
edit on 22-10-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Reality is ..... if i snap your leg and your arm .... its going to hurt. Therefore .. you know its reality

edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


The 'knowing' of it is the reality.

edit on 22-10-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
When you think about it the only thing that makes things real is a body full of senses and a brain that tells it to feel



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Thanks again for all the lengthy reply. By the time we have finished our discussions we'd have written a book.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
This is really an awesome post and totally clarifies for me your ideas on the matter. And not to throw around compliments overly, but I gotta say I find your writing style very engaging and laser like in its precision~ Im glad I didnt make my common mistake of writing you off as a new age type (as i myself having once been a new ager, I have a certain amount of well earned contempt for that line of thinking's revamped irrational mysticism) Beautiful writing though.

Not that my judgement or praise of you means anything, of course. jus' sayin'~


One thing is certain, I have zero religious affiliation what-so-ever and do not affiliate myself with any organization. If anything, I am a lone wolf exploring reality based on the limits of my own subjectivity. It may make me a bit of a wildcard in that I have no religious, political, social motivation for my inquiry into the nature of reality. I simply want the truth, the facts and thus really have no agenda to preach and teach what I experience within this spectrum of existence. I'm still figuring it out within my own limits.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfThanks for clarifying. Of course we agree that it is true that people dream of stuff, and they arent all lying when they report on said stuff.

Actually, we really cannot prove what people say they are dreaming about is true at all. Right now, it's anecdotal evidence as dreams are subjective anecdotes. A hardened skeptic can argue based on the ancedotal argument that there is no evidence that people dream and dreaming itself is woo.

This is why research into externalizing human thought into an objective model will yeild a new era in dream research, as well as perception, neurology and psychology. Dream recording machines lurk in our future to finally objectify the anecdotal limits of dreaming as it stands today.

But we can agree, we do dream as the majority of us all do dream, however there are those who do not remember dreaming at all. So a better argument is most people dream, and we agree that dreams do indeed exist as a part of the human condition for most humans.

We observe cats and dogs acting out during sleep which indicates dreaming; and can also argue that they are dreaming; which is an anecdotal argument as we really don't know if they actually are. However, the pattern seems to fit dreaming as we know it. REM also helps objectify the fact dreams are happening but do not validate content.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIm glad, and a little relieved that youve helped me understand your position a little clearer here. If you had told me that my sparrow existed in some way objectively, or with the capacity to be observed or to affect another consciousness, as I mistakenly thought you perhaps were implying, then at that point I may have had to walk away slooowly from this discussion. That or I may have demanded some sort of evidence to back up the wild claim that subjective experience and objective reality are somehow the same.

And then you stated the following: snip

Now it seems to me that your implying that your lucid dreams do in fact have some tangible existence in 3d reality that can effect the consciousness of others in a measurable way. The above implies that youve blurred the line between objective reality and 'cognitive reality'. Youve also put forward a testable hypothesis in that these effects should be measurable and repeatable in some way. If what youre saying is true, then great! Not only would it be the single most important discovery of all time, but you yourself would be a millionaire, as there is an open pot of $1 000 000 to anyone who can prove to the Amazing Randy the existence of supernatural or psychic phenomenon.


The majority of dreams occur without any indication of objectivity. However, in the case of mutual/shared dreaming and precognitive dreaming there is this indication that some objectivity may exist afterall.

To say that it's repeatable is a stretch, generally these events occur in a spontaneous manner whereby it is only realized after enough data confirms objectivity. At least in my experiences, I cannot go to sleep to specifically dream in a precognitive or mutual dreaming context. These are spontaneous events thus not repeatable in the sense that one can at a whim preform these types of dreams. At least, not me.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Because dreams also are anecdotal; then they are automatically invalidated scientifically thus not subject to scientific inquiry. Yet, historically there are numerous accounts of precognitive dreams, and to this date numerous people report having them. Because of the anecdotal argument; an argument of convenience for those wishing not to accept this as fact, we have a quandary amongst those who do have them and those who do not. Dr. Art Funkhouser I think had done some breaking work by exposing age, frequency research into precognitive dreams and his paper “The frequency of déjà vu (déjà rêve) and the effects of age, dream recall frequency and personality factors”

archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de...

Talking to friends, family and people abroad will expose many people who also claim to have dreams that come true. Again, we have something in the realm of dreaming that is ancedotal from the gate, that many people claim to have. We have cases such as Abe Lincoln dreaming about his assassination weeks before he died. Mark Twain dreaming about his brothers death weeks before it takes place amongst a long list of these reports. There are dream-databases that have over 6,000 reported precognitive dreams and studies such as Dr. Daryl Bem's precognitive research that is in peer review.

The fact is, either all these people claiming to have precognitive dreams are lying, or they are in fact having them. If you dig, read the papers and studies you will find that they often blow chance arguments out the window. Having first-handily experienced them I can attest to the genuine nature of them. Without having had them, I can also argue that I would never believe it possible what-so-ever. However, having the precognitive dream experiences simply sealed the deal with enough personal evidence to validate this as a matter of fact, and not fiction as many would want to believe.

Can it stand up to the Randi Challenge? I've discussed this in length on their forum and the attitude is that it's not testable because it's spontaneous and not something that one could setup an experiment for. After all, how can I even know if a dream is precognitive until after it comes true? That alone is not a qualifying indicator. Either a dream will come true, or it won't. And I usually have no idea until after the deja vu like feeling occurs and the memory links to the dreamed of event.

Hardly fitting within the confines of the scientific method. That doesn't mean however that what I am dreaming of in the future tense isn't happening. I've had my share enough to swathe through all the “arguments” against this being possible.

In my opinion, the research and evidence has been concluded but there is a paranormal-bias in the scientific community due to religion that stifles this area because of it being black-listed as a paranormal experience when in fact it could be an issue of entanglement and part of fourth-dimensional information processing.

I don't know the science behind it other than observing the reality of precognitive dreams. I'm hopeful for more rigorous scientific research once more convincing evidence shakes the foundations of those who wish it away as woo. Hence why I am convinced of the MRI dream-recording as being the next technological breakthrough that will satisfy this phenomena in the same way that skeptics were proven wrong once science had the technology to record lucid dreaming feedback empirically.

Yet, I don't need to wait for science to tell me what I already know. I've had precognitive dreams, and they are absolutely fascinating, mind-boggling and worthy of a science unto themselves. They might shift our paradigm yet once again if we have a breakthrough in capturing these elusive dreams.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If what you describe above is indeed true, an experiment could indeed be designed to pick up and measure the non randomness of some interplay between 'cognitive reality' and just plain ol reality.

Im not kidding when I say it would be super cool to have some reason to believe that consciousness in some way extended beyond the brain. Such an observation, and a working theory to describe it, would be the single biggest break though in human understanding ever. Which is exactly why I will require some serious and incontrovertible evidence to prove to me that this is the case. You anecdotal story, while cool, doesn’t satisfy my admittedly high bar in this regard.


That's great, be skeptical. If you do not have any first-hand experience, how could you even begin to have a framework to accept the reality of it other then that it seems like a wild story? I certainly wouldn't believe anyone if I hadn't experienced it first-hand. I mean, why should I? It goes again the current scientific paradigm.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
If you find precogntiive dreams hard to accept, then the next-level of precognitive dreaming which is “Lucid Precognitive Dreaming” will sound even more incredibly impossible. Largely because in my limited exposure to lucid precognitive dreams, I have changed the dream at “run-time” to observe the changes happen once the future catches up and the dream actualizes. In these acute dreams, not only did I have further verification of precognitive dreams as being fact, but I had first-hand experience with how they affect causality thus affect the future event as it actualize.

In lay terms, the changes I made in the dream happened in reality when the dream came true. An outstanding event which certainly bridged the subjective/objective barrier between dreams and reality.


Originally posted by Neo_Serf
If it could be shown via the scientific method that similar dream experiences can occur above random and are caused by some sort of telekinetic exchange via some yet unknown force, this would be fantastic. How cool would that be? But until this can be shown, I have no choice but to accept our current understanding of the atomized mind.


The International Association for the Study of Dreams runs dream telepathy experiments and have gathered a body of evidence over the years. Again, I have first-hand experience with it so it's self-evident that this potential along with precognitive dreams still await science to catch up and capture them via the scientific method.

The MRI dream recording technology that is slowly evolving makes these two events less exclusive from observation should this ever evolve into dream recording technology. However, it may be 20, 40, 100 more years before science finally has the evidence; so I'm left sounding like a woo when I simply state it as I've experienced it to be.

Again, not worried about it because it's not something that is exclusive to myself; rather just another branch of this mysterious dream phenomena we all experience. I always go back to my argument, “Either you will have it or will not.”

It's not something that I can honestly predict everyone will have, or that there is some special action one must take to have them. That may be a atrophic skill, or other. I really don't know other then observing the end-result of such dreams which kinder my curiosity into these relationships beyond the atomized world.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfAs am I! Are you claiming some sort of telepathic communication? Does 'cognitive reality' interact with, and leave a measurable impression upon objective reality?


Not with this particular dream character no. However, in my 24 years of dream exploration I have had at least 12 dreams which fit the shared-dreaming phenomena as the other parties involved described exacting details such as conversation, setting and details which matched what I had dreamed. Again, both are anecdotal describing a dream that is now filling in the subjective details. No scientific method, no team of scientists there to measure. If in 24 years, 12 shared dreams means that 0.0014% of my dreams or less ( I can have 8 or more dreams a night) 0.00018% gives science a very limited chance to capture and measure such a dream. This makes setting up a control and testing a spontaneous event nearly impossible does it not?

Now if I could somehow do this at will (I cannot) then we have something to work with. But the fact is, these two events are not within my current realm of control; they are artifacts of right dream remembered at the right time. Fustrating as I would love to further it scientifically and provide amazing bodies of evidence but the frequency factor, the rarity of them makes it one of those, believe it or not claims we often hear about.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIf so, Im sure you realize that the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders. And again, if you can provide evidence to back up your experience which proves it is non coincidental and non random, you should claim your million bux and perhaps win the nobel prize in some new category.


And again, based on how I have described this to Randi members, it's concierge untestable so no luck there. Would be wonderful to help others breakthrough into these amazing dream potentials, but sometimes certain things in life do require first-person experience to fully bridge belief and truth.

For that, I refer to current research and past research as well as one's own personal experience that might shine light on this incredible part of the dreamstate. I'm happy enough just to have the personal experience to have this objective view on these two interesting aspects of dreaming.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Just to be clear because intent is easy to misinterpret via text - the above is intended with the least possible sarcasm or prickishness. I genuinely wish what you are saying could be true. But opinions and assertions are next to meaningless in the quest for truth.


The truth is self-evident and these two archtypes of dreaming certainly become self-evident if you do have them. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. However, we are very dream illiterate and the general census of dreaming is not at all encouraging of this avenue of exploration thus the majority of us simply don't care enough to explore the potential, even when exposed to it.

Humans are funny creatures.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfIm sorry, and i of course could totally be wrong, but i see no evidence to support the fantastic claim that humans can see the future, and logically, to me anyways, this would seem impossible as it would negate free will. Since i experience free will on a moment to moment, sensual basis, any negation of this most basic experience of mine, and everyone else, must have more evidence behind it than the scribblings of half starved monks. ( i realize im being dismissive here, no disrespect intended. but fantastic claims require fantastic proof if we are to move forward rationally.)


If you are waiting for mainstream science to suddenly chime in, it may never happen in our lifetime, that said. There is ongoing research and you can explore certain material and draw your own conclusions. The paranormal-bias is a fact, I am convinced that “Establishment” knows about this and doesn't want the public involved in it. That's the conspiracist in me.

Which leaves is with our own first-hand experience and it seems that you might have dipped into the pot a bit.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfBut to be honest, i myself have experience a few precognitive dreams, and so i certainly wont dismiss the notion out of hand.


Perhaps you have, but maybe not to the extent that I have thus you are not satisfied by your own indoctrination into precognitive dreaming to form a solid handle on the fact they happen. However, if that is the window you are given, it is what you are left to work with.

What I like about this wild, spontaneous and random precognitive beacon is that it's not something that you will just read in a book and suddenly “believe” in. Sure, it's talked about in nearly every religion and there are lots of cases of them historically, the sinking of the Titanic spawned several precognitive dream accounts, even 9/11 has them. The most recent Japanese earthquake has them. The fact is, if you genuinely dig for the evidence and research it's out there... but so what. The first-hand personal experience is what this is all about. It seals the deal in my opinion. And it's not some preacher, teacher, scholar that will give you that experience, it is the dream itself that yields the evidence one needs.

You can believe in it like a religion without ever having had them, but once you walk the walk, you can talk the talk. Hopefully rationally too as a rational discussion is better then running to religion and other non-sense as I often find some people do. I still look scientifically for the answers and feel it is a matter of science to resolve.

The other point is, unlike many who will still be spinning the wheels over the argument that this is real or not and making no progress into the theory as to why it is real, I can at least excuse myself from that crowd and look at the rational answers and theories that describe the mechanics of precognition and how they are relevant to future events.


Originally posted by Neo_SerfAs one who keeps a dream book and values the window into the subconscious that dreams provide, i totally agree that dreams are not random images but instead hyper sophisticated holo movies projected by the subconscious to the conscious that can yield immense and profound wisdom. I dont agree that it is a 'fact' that humans can predict the future, though. if this were the case i would expect some body of research showing this to come up as more than and intuitive good guess or sheer randomness. if such evidence exists, id like to see it. (not that im competent to judge the validity of peer reviewed studies)


In my signature there is an abstract that I wrote, it covers some of the evidence and research. Like I said, you would have to dig but I think would find some satisfying answers beyond chance. I know it's fact, but that is due to a 24 year relationship with having these types of experiences. It's merely a self-evident event of dreaming potential exists. There is even evidence on this Forum and if you search precognitive dreams and share dreams you will find other members sharing their experiences.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join