My own dream theory... ?

Idk if this has been brought up here, Maybe it has. I believe there may be parallel universes so i was wondering maybe when we dream we become the subconscious of that particular reality. When we are awake maybe thats a dream for whatever subconscious shows up. Infinite universes can lead to us "visiting" and observing countless realities as the subconcious. When we become lucid there may be a way for lucidity to be possible in that reality and the subconscious takes over. For some universes this may be impossible so thats why we dont become lucid in some dreams. Lol may sound crazy but who knows. Either way makes for good convo imo

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Someone needs to summon Summerlander.

The guy who turns smugness into an artform.

You dont like my post dont reply, simple :) kiss

[ Post made via Android ] Image

It's a fancy idea. But it requires evidence to support it. What we do know: consciousness is a mystery; a multiverse is very probable; evidence suggests that dreams are generated by brains.

I liked your post but I also fancied the idea of pointing out why it is only hypothetical. Am I allowed to reply or do I also need to agree to qualify? :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: It's a fancy idea. But it requires evidence to support it. What we do know: consciousness is a mystery; a multiverse is very probable; evidence suggests that dreams are generated by brains.

I liked your post but I also fancied the idea of pointing out why it is only hypothetical. Am I allowed to reply or do I also need to agree to qualify? :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Lol i dont mind people disagreeing. I respect anyone's opinion. Thank you for giving yours in a nice way.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

No worries. It could turn out that it's all dreaming. Even the brain in a vat scenario (or something like The Matrix) can't be ruled out yet. Who even knows what really happens at death. I must say, though, if there is more than meets the eye―where dreaming is concerned―I'll be very surprised! :-)

[ Post made via Android ] Image

If you want to know what happens after death, just wait for someone to return from it to tell you about it!

True. And the dead—with their dead, decayed or incinerated brains—have never told a tale. Hmmm, wonder why? :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

dreamerinmiami wrote: Either way makes for good convo imo

I think this kind of speculation is great. I can't say I agree with the details, but I do have ideas about consciousness and what we can learn about it in dreams. What I think is very clear about consciousness that we learn from dreams, is that on the level of daily life (also called "waking" consciousness, or just consciousness) we have a limited view. Lately, I have been even a little hesitant to use words like "subconscious" or "unconscious" when referring to the mind. The fact of the matter is that in dreams, there is a creative action taking place that goes beyond waking consciousness or ego consciousness. There are plenty of scenes and dream figures and events that take place in dreams that are obviously and undoubtedly not created by waking, ego. It suggests that the subconscious or unconscious is actually not "sub" or "un," but rather "co."

For Summerlander, I would actually challenge:

Summerlander wrote: evidence suggests that dreams are generated by brains.

I think it is quite clear that evidence suggests that dreams are associated with brains, the same way thoughts, emotions, consciousness is associated with brains.

But, let's back up to consciousness, as dreams are a component of consciousness. I am aware of no evidence at all that consciousness (or dreaming) is "generated" by brain - or in other words there is no evidence that the brain creates consciousness or dreams. In order for the brain to be the generator or creator of dreams and consciousness, the brain would have to always precede the latter. The fact of science to date is that most science draws conclusions that are all unfounded if you remove the assumptions that they are stacked upon. So for example, if you preconceive that matter is a primacy in our universe, then when you use physical tools to measure the physical phenomena of the brain, one concludes that thoughts, feelings, consciousness, etc, is a product of physical activity. However, if you do not make the aforementioned preconception, the specific conclusion that matter creates consciousness cannot be drawn. The only conclusion that could perhaps be drawn, is that there is some level of interrelation.

I would say that the best and simplest evidentiary example--quite telling, really--is that a good blow to the head can render one unconscious. This observation implies that the source of the phenomenon has been hit and thus the 'transmission' of awareness--or the curious gestalt--is somehow interrupted. :mrgreen:

But I do like this hypothesis and it could turn out to be true: 'The only conclusion that could perhaps be drawn, is that there is some level of interrelation.' However, the interrelation would not explain consciousness nor the nature of matter for that matter. And it seems to me that consciousness is irreducible. Here's a link that lists some theories of consciousness, by the way:

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16442

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: I would say that the best and simplest evidentiary example--quite telling, really--is that a good blow to the head can render one unconscious. This observation implies that the source of the phenomenon has been hit and thus the 'transmission' of awareness--or the curious gestalt--is somehow interrupted. :mrgreen:

I see your point, but I also still think you are confusing a valid conclusion of this evidence with a "jump to conclusion" type of response. You see, the only way to purport that brain generates consciousness is to start with the preconceived notion that matter is prime to a secondary consciousness. If, for the sake of argument (not to say it is necessarily true or not), you assume that consciousness is prime, one could easily say that the happenstance of a person becoming unconsciousness in a scenario like the one you described can be explained as a meeting of mental factors (perhaps two minds being aggressive toward one another and one getting the "upper hand," so-to-speak), and therefore, since the consciousness is assumed to be prime and matter assumed to be secondary, the fact of the minds observing the interaction of matter in relation to the event is both mind-witnessed and mind-created.

Materialist science has no way to prove this, but also has no disproof. The assumptions on which materialist science rests its "evidence" and "proof" are themselves unproven. I find materialist science to be totally inadequate when discussing consciousness, because it insists upon objectivity and almost totally and reflexively discounts subjectivity. Quantum mechanics is making an improvement upon these flaws in current scientific methodology.

Summerlander wrote: However, the interrelation would not explain consciousness nor the nature of matter for that matter. And it seems to me that consciousness is irreducible.:

Well, I believe you are mistaken here as well. In fact, the interrelation is part of the explanation of consciousness and matter. And, remember that, as long as we remove the mistaken preconceptions and assumptions that science has been making and using to create overzealous conclusions, the evidence that science offers is still evidence. For example, we do indeed know that matter is congealed energy (E=mc^2). We also know that while matter appears to be substantial and self-existent, it is merely perceived to be that way, and it is in fact almost entirely empty space (something like 99.999999%). Furthermore, we know that "external" objects appear to have color, and yet the only experience of color happens when photons interact with the eye and are interpreted based upon the "particle-wave"'s frequency. The reason I bring all that up is to show that there is plenty of evidence that is opposed to the way human beings and society as a whole chooses to construct ideas about the way reality manifests.

Also, I believe there are plenty of lucid dreamers worth their salt (meaning those that probe the nature of the dream itself and endeavor to discover evidence about the nature of consciousness within a dream), who could tell you that there is definitely evidence that consciousness is reducible. The notion that it is irreducible would be most attributable to an ego-centered construct that seeks to defend itself by "owning" a plot of consciousness. However, if consciousness were irreducible, what is it that creates a scene in a dream? If your response is that that consciousness is a part of "your" irreducible consciousness: How is it that it can be considered a "part" if it is not reducible? And why is it that during waking hours, that creative part of consciousness is not able to overlay what you see with dream imagery as it can during dreams? If consciousness is not reducible, how can you speak of being conscious of phenomena related to vision and relate to another person a difference in experience as compared to talking about a conscious experience related to a sound phenomena? Just those questions alone serve as evidence, perhaps even proof, of the nature of consciousness being "insubstantial," in the same way that matter can be reduced and examined. The difference is that SCIENCE does not examine consciousness because of some odd aversion to subjectivity, which is one-half of reality. Despite that I am a man of science, by profession, I have little respect for the fact that science discounts one-half of reality, and then claims to be the largest share-holder, in a word.

I had a further thought to bring to attention, that might be very helpful also:

Since discussion of "the science of dreams" is the topic, first let me point out that this post is simply a way of discussing science itself for the purpose of not limiting the true science of dreams by doing what most scientists to date have done, which is to elevate SCIENCE to the level of a religious dogma.

So, now let's have a further word about SCIENCE's almighty objectivity. Objectivity, as opposed to subjectivity is, dare I say, absurd. Or more clearly put: to say that any experience, scientific study, or endeavor in understanding could be any more than in-part objective, is ridiculous. (Now I'll stop capitalizing and bold-ing the word "science," which is meant to emphasize the notion of science as audaciously mistaken and just let the implication be applied naturally.) Science has had the bad habit of assuming things that are impossible and illogical and thereby making a joke of itself. My favorite example of this is the notion that "science is objective." This claim is made, with no real evidence to support the notion, in order to elevate the sense of importance and non-disputability that science generally craves.

However, ask yourselves, how is any experience ever had in a totally objective way? If a subject experiences an apparently external phenomena, called an object, how is the experience ever void of subjectivity? Furthermore, let's even consider a scientific research paper. How does a person ever read a paper authored by another person (both subjects - one the subject that experienced the collection of data or observation of phenomena presented in the paper - the other, the subject that experiences the interpretation of the language of the paper into its own understanding of what is presented) and receive information objectively?

Let's even consider the previous example I gave of the experience of color.

Shoe wrote: we know that "external" objects appear to have color, and yet the only experience of color happens when photons interact with the eye and are interpreted based upon the "particle-wave"'s frequency

How does one have an objective observation of color, when the experience of observing requires the subject to be present and conscious? Without an observer, a subject, there is in fact no proof that a photon even exists, and there is certainly no color, being that color is an interpretation by a subject of one object being barraged by other objects (particle-wave) at a particular frequency.

The point is that the current assumptions of materialist or dogmatic science (or any assumptions, really), can only result in the scientific endeavor being flimsy (a strawman as Summerlander phrased of another argument, in another post).

So, go back to the assumption that brain hold primacy over consciousness. There is no real proof of that, and evidence can hardly be taken seriously. Any argument can be exposed in its absurdity with just a modicum of thoughtfulness. For example, observe a person being knocked unconscious. The observation itself is subjective, or, in other words, the observation of that phenomena is dependent upon consciousness itself.

Again, the point of this post is to try to highlight the necessity to remove assumption. One of the most insidious of all assumptions that have been made is that science is capable of viewing things objectively. Even more insidious is the notion that objectivity without subjectivity is somehow superior and allows knowledge of the nature of reality.

I'll leave you with a quote by one of my favorite geniuses:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

To endeavor to know the nature of reality, one must be content that they endeavor to know the nature of illusion. How delightfully hilarious. :lol:

Shoe wrote: I see your point, but I also still think you are confusing a valid conclusion of this evidence with a "jump to conclusion" type of response.

Not at all--I'm don't claim to know anything for sure when it comes to the nature of consciousness. If anything, I'm pretty much where science is: it's puzzling. (I did, after all, use the word 'suggests'.) ;-)

I can tell that you did not check the link I provided which includes many viewpoints and hypotheses about consciousness. Much of the philosophy you propound here has already been discussed and isn't anything that stands on firm ground--it is fun to speculate and I get that, but, in the scientific community, evidence speaks the louds, and yes, one must take prudence when wording conclusions. (This concerns questions along the lines of how much we really know--or can claim to know; honesty is beautiful and handy.) It's not that science is bad; it's people with their tendency to jump the gun.

Shoe wrote: You see, the only way to purport that brain generates consciousness is to start with the preconceived notion that matter is prime to a secondary consciousness.

For some philosophers like Daniel Dennett, the only theory that could successfully explain consciousness is one that makes use of unconscious factors and their interactions. Thus, it is not so nonsensical to think that a system of unconscious molecules became so interrelated and unified as to develop an awareness of itself--a user illusion, so to speak. (And you, being a Buddhist, should get this one.)

Now, Dennett contends, and rightly so, that a theory that attempts to explain consciousness with consciousness is nonsensical and bogus. It does not solve the riddle in the slightest. Hence why the primacy of consciousness as a theory does not wash with me. I don't entirely agree with everything that Dennett says as he goes as far as saying that consciousness is an illusion (how can it? It either is as it seems or it just isn't there--which is preposterous thought because the seeming is consciousness and how could one be conscious of the seeming if it didn't exist even as an epiphenomenon), but he does make a good point about what has explanatory power and what doesn't. 8-)

Shoe wrote: If, for the sake of argument (not to say it is necessarily true or not), you assume that consciousness is prime, one could easily say that the happenstance of a person becoming unconsciousness in a scenario like the one you described can be explained as a meeting of mental factors (perhaps two minds being aggressive toward one another and one getting the "upper hand," so-to-speak), and therefore, since the consciousness is assumed to be prime and matter assumed to be secondary, the fact of the minds observing the interaction of matter in relation to the event is both mind-witnessed and mind-created.

I'm sorry but I don't see this happening and I think the premise is fallacious--apart from being solipsistic. We are not the centre of the universe. I could pass out from a blow to the head and apparently come to in the next moment and be told by my family that I was out for half an hour. During that time, nothing was perceived--not even the passage of time--this is what it means to be unconscious. In a similar vein, when you die, the world continues to exist for other humans and animals that perceive the world in their own way with their biological systems. The universe does not require my mind to exist. The universe does not require me to be conscious to carry on. All we have is subjectivity (our mental model of reality) but this does not negate the objective world at all and does not prove that it's mentally created. There is a distinction here to be made: What is mentally created is our perception of the world--this might be interpreted as an illusion--not what it seems, colours don't really exist, the qualia is subjective--but the world of matter exists all by itself. (Don't tell me the moon ceases to exist when nobody is looking! This is a solipsistic reductio ad absurdum ... ) :-D

Shoe wrote: Materialist science has no way to prove this, but also has no disproof.

You're the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove it. That's how it works, baby! :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: Quantum mechanics is making an improvement upon these flaws in current scientific methodology.

Quantum mechanics do not explain consciousness. In fact, quantum theory--which your genius Einstein abhorred, by the way--only reveals that at the subatomic level there are time increments and a probabilistic framework which is difficult for our classically evolved minds to wrap around. This is where the descriptive adjective 'weird' comes from as the quantum is not contrained by the same laws as the macroscopic. But there is nothing intrinsically beyond explanation going on. (This is not to say, however, that no truth is beyond our reach; as mammals, we are still quite limited in ken and scope.) ;-)

Shoe wrote: Well, I believe you are mistaken here as well. In fact, the interrelation is part of the explanation of consciousness and matter.

I don't see it. You are not really explaining what the interrelating factors (i.e. consciousness and matter) are. If interrelation cannot happen without the factors how can it sustain these let alone explain them?

Shoe wrote: And, remember that, as long as we remove the mistaken preconceptions and assumptions that science has been making and using to create overzealous conclusions,

You don't know they are mistaken; this is your overzealous preconception right here--or is it some sort of Buddhist parti pris where every conception begotten by the unenlightened mind must be fallacious by default? :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: the evidence that science offers is still evidence. For example, we do indeed know that matter is congealed energy (E=mc^2).

Really? And when did this become the case: shortly after the Big Bang over a dozen billion years ago or when we became clever enough to realise this thus simultanously manifesting it with our minds? :lol:

Shoe wrote: We also know that while matter appears to be substantial and self-existent, it is merely perceived to be that way, and it is in fact almost entirely empty space (something like 99.999999%).

That's because we cannot see the spaces between the atoms and our organic systems developed inaccurate mental models of reality--full of illusions, I might add--which evolved primarily to adapt and survive, thus ensuring a more or less stable earthly niche. Come on, man, do you know how many quantum physics books I've read? 8-)

Shoe wrote: Also, I believe there are plenty of lucid dreamers worth their salt (meaning those that probe the nature of the dream itself and endeavor to discover evidence about the nature of consciousness within a dream), who could tell you that there is definitely evidence that consciousness is reducible. The notion that it is irreducible would be most attributable to an ego-centered construct that seeks to defend itself by "owning" a plot of consciousness.

Not at all--it has nothing to do with ego. As a Buddhist, I'm sure you practise meditation and I hope you have encountered, as I have, mental states where the ego falls away and all that remains is a pristine awareness--pure consciousness! Furthermore, I'll put it in plain terms to show you why consciousness is irreducible: you are either conscious, or you're not; either something is being perceived or there is no perception at all. Either consciousness is ... or isn't. Period.

Shoe wrote: However, if consciousness were irreducible, what is it that creates a scene in a dream? If your response is that that consciousness is a part of "your" irreducible consciousness: How is it that it can be considered a "part" if it is not reducible?

Very simple: the dream scene is convoluted consciousness--something that arises in your mind; if the dream scene dissipates to be replaced by darkness and perhaps some sounds, then maybe one could say that the content of consciousness has been simplified. But consciousness has remained throughout in spite of the perceptual changes. You cannot really say that it diminished in any way, even if the sensations that make up the dream gradually peter out; you can say in one moment that an acute sensation is experienced and then a mild one the next, but in both moments we are aware of something regardless of quality or strength. Consciousness exists throughout; it is that perceptual field where conceptions potentially arise. This 'field' can exist without conceptions--including notions of self--and dichotomies of observer and observed disappear. Your Buddha certainly discovered this empty awareness (consciousness devoid of all conceptions), but this is not unconsciousness--which brings me back to my point where I ascertain and maintain the irreducibility of consciousness: the awareness is either on or off. ;-)

Shoe wrote: And why is it that during waking hours, that creative part of consciousness is not able to overlay what you see with dream imagery as it can during dreams?

As Stephen LaBerge put it: perception is dreaming constrained by sensory input; dreaming is perception unconstrained by sensory input. While awake, your brain is busy processing sensory input from the external world. During sleep (mostly REM), it is free to review mnemonic and schematic data which allows it to mentally integrate abstractions and construct other models which can be divorced from reality--even your identity, or sense of self, can be altered because the ego is nothing but a bundle of thoughts itself. (The self does not exist as a soul and has no objective reality.)

Shoe wrote: If consciousness is not reducible, how can you speak of being conscious of phenomena related to vision and relate to another person a difference in experience as compared to talking about a conscious experience related to a sound phenomena?

I believe I've answered your question already. I think you are confused as you seem to be mistaking change for reduction, my friend. :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: Just those questions alone serve as evidence, perhaps even proof, of the nature of consciousness being "insubstantial," in the same way that matter can be reduced and examined.

Just to clarify, consciousness is still irreducible but not in that sense. First of all, when a neuroscientist--such as Christof Koch--observes the active brain of a subject, he can get an idea of whether or not this one is conscious. But Koch does not know what it is like to be the subject. He only knows what it is like to be himself observing the subject's brain. If Koch wants to know for sure what the subject is experiencing and whether this one is conscious at all, he'd have to be the guinea pig; Koch would no longer be Koch if he possessed the same bodily mass as the subject. He'd have to be the same condensed energy arranged in the same complex way, occupying the same space with his bum sat in the same chair having his neoencephalon probed. And this is what consciousness is: what it is like to be. Why there is such a thing as what it is like to be something is the biggest mystery--but one that science might crack one day.

Shoe wrote: The difference is that SCIENCE does not examine consciousness because of some odd aversion to subjectivity, which is one-half of reality.

This is simply false. There are scientists who meditate, lucid dream and even take psychedelics in order to explore their own minds and make observations about their own subjective worlds. Sam Harris is one such scientific explorer who will use these unconventional methods apart from the other tools at his disposal. Stephen LaBerge we already know about ... 8-)

Shoe wrote: Despite that I am a man of science, by profession, I have little respect for the fact that science discounts one-half of reality, and then claims to be the largest share-holder, in a word.

You know science is not a person, right? There are people doing pseudoscience and calling it science out there. There are also people drawing mistaken conclusions from legitimate experiments only to throw away their pet theories in light of new information. Albert Einstein, with his 'cosmological constant', is a perfect example. He believed the universe was eternal and static, and when his equations said otherwise and pointed towards expansion, he made the mistake of 'correcting' them. :mrgreen:

But this is what science is all about! It is not dogmatic. Its conclusions--or interpretations a posteriori--are always pending in light of new evidence. It is best employed by individuals who just care about the facts and don't cling to ideas just because they are fancy.

Shoe wrote: Since discussion of "the science of dreams" is the topic, first let me point out that this post is simply a way of discussing science itself for the purpose of not limiting the true science of dreams by doing what most scientists to date have done, which is to elevate SCIENCE to the level of a religious dogma.

I think you've been reading too much literature by a certain disgraced Christian pseudoscientist, Mr Rupert Sheldrake. :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: However, ask yourselves, how is any experience ever had in a totally objective way? If a subject experiences an apparently external phenomena, called an object, how is the experience ever void of subjectivity?

It's not. Subjectivity is all we have and science acknowledges that we never witness the objective world directly, all we experience is mental models, experiential translations and interpretations as it were. It makes no sense to ask what the world really looks like because how it looks depends upon who is observing it. A bat, with its echolocation, is biologically hardwired to perceive the world a certain way. That's what the world looks like to a bat. But this perceptual appearance is not true for humans because these are made differently and therefore have other sensitivities. It is true to say, however, that both bat and human perceive--albeit differently--an obstacle such as a mountain. Both can distinguish where the mountain ends and the sky begins. The atoms that make up the sky are arranged in a different way to the atoms that make up the mountain. This is, by far, the best evidence we have (conveyed in this example) that something exists out there apart from ourselves and independent of our minds.

Shoe wrote: However, ask yourselves, how is any experience ever had in a totally objective way? If a subject experiences an apparently external phenomena, called an object, how is the experience ever void of subjectivity? Furthermore, let's even consider a scientific research paper. How does a person ever read a paper authored by another person (both subjects - one the subject that experienced the collection of data or observation of phenomena presented in the paper - the other, the subject that experiences the interpretation of the language of the paper into its own understanding of what is presented) and receive information objectively?

Scientific conclusions are peer-reviewed, experiments are recreated to make sure. A consensus is reached based on something undeniably objective which can be understood by several people who observe the same thing. :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: Without an observer, a subject, there is in fact no proof that a photon even exists, and there is certainly no color, being that color is an interpretation by a subject of one object being barraged by other objects (particle-wave) at a particular frequency.

Colours only exist phenomenologically, Mr Edmund Husserl! But a broad range of wavelengths are certainly part of a spectral noumena (the way things really are as opposed to how they seem) which can be detected and measured by scientific apparatus. :-)

Shoe wrote: For example, observe a person being knocked unconscious. The observation itself is subjective, or, in other words, the observation of that phenomena is dependent upon consciousness itself.

You seem to only refer to the subjectivity of witnesses to the occurrence where someone else is knocked unconscious. This is suspiciously dismissive to me. Their observing is not required for the event to take place. It is still true that the event could have taken place without any witnesses save for the one who is knocked unconscious who merely experiences falling one moment and coming to the next without any notion that some time has passed during unconsciousness. (Until he or she looks at a clock.)

Shoe wrote: Again, the point of this post is to try to highlight the necessity to remove assumption. One of the most insidious of all assumptions that have been made is that science is capable of viewing things objectively.

I don't think it's insidious at all. Science is a man-made method of enquiry designed to enlighten human comprehension. It is useless for other creatures like baboons, lizards and dolphins. The fact that we have come this far is owed to science.

Shoe wrote: To endeavor to know the nature of reality, one must be content that they endeavor to know the nature of illusion. How delightfully hilarious.

An illusion is something which isn't what it seems. There is nothing deserving derision about finding out what's behind it. I think the appropriate word is 'exciting', because, once you know how the illusion comes about, you have explanatory power and the world becomes richer and more beautiful for that matter. More clarity and less obscurity. Perhaps you should change your monicker to 'Barefoot'. :mrgreen:

'The foot feels the foot when it feels the ground.'--Buddha

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Delightful debate. Thank you for your response. Though, if I would offer one piece of advice to your debate style, it would be to take it easy with statements that can be perceived by others as condescension. I know there were a few statements in there that touch on raw spots, which luckily for me, part of my spiritual practice is to seek out the raw spots, since that is where my ego tends to hang out and the ego is something to watch out for and tame. However, others may simply disregard your arguments, many of which are quite good and helpful, because when one speaks to others with harsh language it so happens that there are a good many people who become reactive.

It seems to me that one of the main things our conversation has highlighted so far, is the limited ability for language to effectively transmit the original message as intended. :lol:

I'll attempt to respond in short, so future posts do not end up too long to read (I only have so much time in the day ;) )

Summerlander wrote: Thus, it is not so nonsensical to think that a system of unconscious molecules became so interrelated and unified as to develop an awareness of itself--a user illusion, so to speak. (And you, being a Buddhist, should get this one.)

Summerlander wrote: It's not that science is bad; it's people with their tendency to jump the gun.

I totally agree. It is indeed not nonsensical. And I am not saying that science is bad. :lol: (As I tried to highlight in the previous post: my bold-facing and capitalizing SCIENCE was an attempt to set it as opposed to science - the emphasized and at times personified version indicating the odd way that many scientists and even the uneducated take evidence as proof and science as an infallible godhead). And I was not saying that my previous posts were true in any absolute way. The main point was that you can knock the legs out from underneath almost any argument :lol:

Summerlander wrote: I'm sorry but I don't see this happening and I think the premise is fallacious--apart from being solipsistic. We are not the centre of the universe. I could pass out from a blow to the head and apparently come to in the next moment and be told by my family that I was out for half an hour. During that time, nothing was perceived--not even the passage of time--this is what it means to be unconscious. In a similar vein, when you die, the world continues to exist for other humans and animals that perceive the world in their own way with their biological systems. The universe does not require my mind to exist. The universe does not require me to be conscious to carry on. All we have is subjectivity (our mental model of reality) but this does not negate the objective world at all and does not prove that it's mentally created. There is a distinction here to be made: What is mentally created is our perception of the world--this might be interpreted as an illusion--not what it seems, colours don't really exist, the qualia is subjective--but the world of matter exists all by itself. (Don't tell me the moon ceases to exist when nobody is looking! This is a solipsistic reductio ad absurdum ... ) :-D

This bit just shows you did not at all get my intended message that is embedded in the language. In no way is it solipsistic, because nowhere did i propose that MY consciousness is somehow the only consciousness able to know or be known. And, I would further comment, being that there is no proof of what consciousness is or is not, there is nothing to say that, even without living, conscious beings as we know them and as we can perceive them, the moon does not have its only form of consciousness. It really depends upon how you define consciousness.

Summerlander wrote: You're the one making the claim so the onus is on you to prove it. That's how it works, baby! :mrgreen:

Again, you haven't gotten my point. I in fact do not even have an interest in the theory of consciousness I proposed :lol: . I don't care if it is true or untrue. I only use the scientific process to do research for work so I can make a living and support my family in the way that our society has come to function. Further than that, all I really care about is taking care of my family, meditating to cultivate more compassion for living beings, and teaching my girls how to live a decent life. The fact that I said that materialist has no way of proving or disproving my proposed theory in the present, was the same reason that I proposed the theory in the first place: to highlight the absurdity of scientists who offer conclusions from the evidence they gather as if their conclusions were substantially meaningful, in relation to discovering some type of "absolute." The statement that "materialist science has no proof or disproof" is in itself evidence for my main point: "SCIENCE" (again, bold-faced and personified for the aforementioned reasons) is a fool.

Summerlander wrote: I don't see it. You are not really explaining what the interrelating factors (i.e. consciousness and matter) are. If interrelation cannot happen without the factors how can it sustain these let alone explain them?

I can tell you don't see it. And I'm afraid if you are really that blind to it, I have difficulty believing you have meditated with the success you claim to have had. If you have meditated all the way to the experience of shunyata (Sanskrit word for the experience you claim to have had), you would not only not have difficulty seeing it, but you would also understand the fact that the interrelation I am referring to (and the implications of the interrelation) cannot be effectively explained with language. Furthermore, the above quote is like saying, "If the interrelation between the heart and the blood cannot happen without the heart and the blood, how can the interrelation between the heart and the blood sustain the two?" C'mon, you have to had thought that through better. :lol:

Summerlander wrote: You don't know they are mistaken; this is your overzealous preconception right here

That's true, good catch. And thanks. It would be more appropriate/accurate to say "remove the tendency to take the preconceptions and assumptions as if they were indisputably true or even supported by strong evidence."

Summerlander wrote: Not at all--it has nothing to do with ego. As a Buddhist, I'm sure you practise meditation and I hope you have encountered, as I have, mental states where the ego falls away and all that remains is a pristine awareness--pure consciousness! Furthermore, I'll put it in plain terms to show you why consciousness is irreducible: you are either conscious, or you're not; either something is being perceived or there is no perception at all. Either consciousness is ... or isn't. Period.

Indeed, I practice meditation. And as I have said above, I become less and less willing to believe you have had the experience with it that you claim, as from my own experience and from the experience of countless others, having meditative experiences of pure awareness, egolessness, Shunyata, or whatever you want to call it, almost always leads one to become more skillful in controlling the urge to display ones ego - an act that you would only not see yourself doing in almost every post longer than 20 words that I've read of yours on this forum if you had no awareness at all of what the ego does to manifest and boast of itself (an awareness that would inherently come with proper meditation).

Also, I don't know if you are using the philosophical definition of irreducibility or some definition that you contrived by your lonesome. If you are using the actual definition, then I have no idea what you are talking about. If you don't know the definition: google "define irreducible." Either way, the fact that you point to the duality between consciousness and unconsciousness is itself a reduction. :lol:

... Good lord, too much to refute in the next few passages. And indeed in one you responded to a trick question: in fact consciousness can and does overlay the external world with its own information. The extreme form is know as hallucination. ... You go into condescending some statements I made about SCIENCE, having either not read my explanation about the reason for capitalization and bold type or choosing to ignore it so you can lace your response with sarcasm and bolster your own argument with juvenile debate techniques. ... Of course I know science is not a person. And again, it was personified as a way of distinguishing it from the respectable attitudes of science and proper scientists. ... Never even heard of Sheldrake. ... You go into saying

Summerlander wrote: Subjectivity is all we have and science acknowledges that we never witness the objective world directly and then say Summerlander wrote: A consensus is reached based on something undeniably objective . Please, Summerlander, explain that one. ... Perhaps I need to go into how I define existence, but you still aren't getting that subjectivity, even if it appears almost exactly the same from different points of view, is still not objectivity. Scientifically, I could say that dream figures exist and are real. They are, after all, observable and I can record that observation. Other people have similar subjective experiences.It all depends on how you define all the interacting variables. ...

Summerlander wrote: You seem to only refer to the subjectivity of witnesses to the occurrence where someone else is knocked unconscious. This is suspiciously dismissive to me. Their observing is not required for the event to take place. It is still true that the event could have taken place without any witnesses save for the one who is knocked unconscious who merely experiences falling one moment and coming to the next without any notion that some time has passed during unconsciousness. (Until he or she looks at a clock.)

You can speak of the person who was knocked unconscious. It's fine. The experience is still a subjective experience. The experience itself can only be had within the realm of consciousness. Again, this is not solipsism, this is simply a fact. Multiple forms of consciousness can be interacting (with one another and with apparently external phenomena) and yet consciousness is still the only thing that "meets" any information. It also is appropriate, now, to bring up time itself. We operate under the illusion that time exists, is logical, or any of the myriad assumptions we have, and upon which we build up our knowledge of the universe. But there is plenty of paradox between logic, time, distance, consciousness. Something has to give. Take the paradox of motion, in which it is perfectly logical to state that one must move to a half way point between a destination and where they are presently (in time). However, you cannot move a distance instantaneously, and you cannot move a "non-distance" (again both perfectly logical statements). So, before one actually reaches any destination by moving a finite distance, one must go through the half-way point which is also finite because it is a division of something finite. Think about it. Using logic, the assumption of time, the assumption of distance, (at the very least) something is illogical, illusory, or false, as what we know about time and distance with our logical mind would have us never moving at all. There is no logical way to begin moving, because one cannot move a distance that is an infinite division of a distance (a non-distance in other words) and one cannot move a finite distance instantaneously. ...

Summerlander wrote: I don't think it's insidious at all.

The fact that you previously said that science recognizes that all we have is subjectivity and yet you don't think that it is insidiously problematic for science to assume that things can be measured objectively, is disturbing. Yes, science is a good thing, I am not bashing it. I am bashing human arrogance. ( again, if you had read and not ignored what I posted previously about having stopped capitalizing science for the sake of easily and more quickly typing - you would know by the point in my post to which your quote is referring, I still was using the term science to refer to the dogmatic and arrogant atmosphere that often surrounds science )

... And finally, the foot still feels the foot when the foot feels the shoe. :lol:

I like it, Whether its true or not is irrelevant to me, when people start trying to prove and convert people to there beliefs, madness starts happening. the aborigines thought the dream world was the real world. the native americans had dream catchers, all good stuff compared to todays HD tvs if you ask me, :D

Shoe wrote: take it easy with statements that can be perceived by others as condescension.

I am free to express whatever I want--however I want it--regardless of how others might perceive it. If they take offence, then the problem is theirs, not mine. You must have found my remarks condescending--somewhere in your mind--to have made such a statement; and I see two possible reasons for your need to dictate to me from your Buddhist standpoint: you're in denial about your bruised ego and feign compassion for others in order to maintain a pharisaic attitude, or you see others as having a mind exactly like yours (the mark of a true solipsist who realistically does not take brain in a vat scenarios seriously.) which inadvertently enables a shift of responsibility for your feelings- -hence, to paraphrase your oxymoron, 'I don't feel it but others will.' 8-)

Shoe wrote: I know there were a few statements in there that touch on raw spots, which luckily for me, part of my spiritual practice is to seek out the raw spots, since that is where my ego tends to hang out and the ego is something to watch out for and tame.

I started a topic sometime ago called 'Lucid Dreamers and God' in the Dream Science section of this forum. If you ever bother to read it, you will find the reasons why I find some aspects of Buddhism unappealling. This statement of yours illustrates one of them perfectly. A holier-than-thou stance is often abjectly adopted by those who hypocritically accuse others of being condescending. This isn't to say that Buddhism is devoid of useful aspects, but, like other religions and cults, it portrays the human condition as flawed and in need of salvation--which leads many of its adherents to selfishly--for how else can one make the journey to enlightenment if not from the ego terminus a quo--seek the position of the untouchables, the stance of the Mafia boss that doesn't have to move for anybody. Thus, Buddhism--with all its schisms--is mostly a sordid affair. Live and let live, my friend. :-D

Shoe wrote: However, others may simply disregard your arguments, many of which are quite good and helpful, because when one speaks to others with harsh language it so happens that there are a good many people who become reactive.

Then those 'good many people' have a problem if they can't see past their bruised egos in order to be pragmatic and engage in rational discourse. Perhaps they would do better to try to answer the question of why they find certain statements 'harsh' rather than wishing them censored. Censoring is like running away and individuals who do this will never find peace. If I always had to watch what I say for fear of offending or upsetting people, I wouldn't be able to say anything at all; there is always someone out there claiming to be offended by trivialities; and what's worse, certain cold truths wouldn't be voiced--leading the world to live in delusion and pretending.

Shoe wrote: The main point was that you can knock the legs out from underneath almost any argument :lol:

The trouble with this is that when it's adopted by sophists such as yourself, it can almost convince the lemming that a firmly established conclusion has truly been rendered limp. :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: In no way is it solipsistic, because nowhere did i propose that MY consciousness is somehow the only consciousness able to know or be known. And, I would further comment, being that there is no proof of what consciousness is or is not, there is nothing to say that, even without living, conscious beings as we know them and as we can perceive them, the moon does not have its only form of consciousness. It really depends upon how you define consciousness.

As I've said before in the Paranormal section:

'Nearly two centuries of neuroscience--where we have observed that all mental faculties are excisable via brain damage or malfunction--is enough to render Descartes' dualism defunct. The soul concept doesn't even explain consciousness; it only aggravates the problem as we are then forced to ask: How is the soul conscious. Besides, Occam's razor: Our biology can work without such assumption. It's funny how hadron colliders have revealled the Higgs that bestows mass to all particles, and yet, this hypothetical ghost that is supposed to grossly control physical bodies (on a classical level of physics) is nowhere to be found.'

The statement above also weighs against your quasi-monist assumption where consciousness is primary and quintessential. I don't know what world you're living in but consciousness--as anthropically defined--is the awareness of a living organism. Every person has a theory of mind whereby the psyches of others are presupposed. Since you claim to be a scientist, I shouldn't have to tell you that one can never be 100% sure others possess minds, too. But the alternative (to behave as if they're mindless zombies) is untenable if not absurd; likewise, it would have been farcical of Neil Armstrong if he had asked the moon whether it minded his boot on it. :-D

We no longer think behaviour is a good indication that someone or something is conscious, therefore, the next best thing is to rely on reportability. A human being can report back the awareness of sensations--he or she possesses a plica vocalis and a highly developed encephalon adequate to contrive language; rocks have neither and do not report anything. And if an active brain in Delta mode can be established to be unconscious--nevermind dead noodles--what are we to expect from inanimately mineral, and therefore inorganic, lumps of matter? (I won't even go into your unscientific disregard for the working complexity of the human brain and its multifariously Gordian interaction with cerebral counterparts.) :shock:

Shoe wrote: I in fact do not even have an interest in the theory of consciousness I proposed :lol: .

I find it alien for a scientist to not have the slightest interest in his own theories--especially when they are about consciousness!--but it's even more outré that you've indifferently excogitated your hypothesis. Why do it in the first place?

Shoe wrote: The fact that I said that materialist has no way of proving or disproving my proposed theory in the present, was the same reason that I proposedthe theory in the first place

This statement is tantamount to saying, 'Flying pigs could exist because absence of evidence for their existence is not evidence of absence.' (I hope you can see what is wrong with this asseveration.) A very wise man would have retorted, 'What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed in the same insubstantial manner.' :lol:

Shoe wrote: If you have meditated all the way to the experience of shunyata (Sanskrit word for the experience you claim to have had), you would not only not have difficulty seeing it, but you would also understand the fact that the interrelation I am referring to (and the implications of the interrelation) cannot be effectively explained with language.

Once again, the casuistic solipsist at work as he asserts that what is true about his mind must be true for others. Unlike you who seeks these things, I stumbled upon instances of the aforementioned numinous experience--but never mind and I couldn't care less if you find it believable or not. (I already suspect there's a jealous Buddhist who tries so hard to get them but they never come.) :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: Furthermore, the above quote is like saying, "If the interrelation between the heart and the blood cannot happen without the heart and the blood, how can the interrelation between the heart and the blood sustain the two?" C'mon, you have to had thought that through better. :lol:

Not at all, my friend! :-D

You said the interrelation is part of the explanation of both consciousness and matter. I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how. And using invalid analogies doesn't wash with me--both the heart and the blood are tangible--so it is you who should have thought it through. You are either living in the cuckooland of mental abstractions (hence your admission of the inability to convey what you mean with language, or you're just spouting casuistry out of your rear end. :mrgreen:

This is what I actually said to highlight your Platonic mistake in regarding the interaction as an independent factor rather than a dependent occurrence: 'You are not really explaining what the interrelating factors (i.e. consciousness and matter) are. If interrelation cannot happen without the factors how can it sustain these let alone explain them?'

But since you are on hearts and blood, let me ask you a rhetorical question: Do they have to interact with each other for their existence and identities to remain intact? In other words, do they require interaction to sustain them and explain them? If you are puzzled by now, allow me to enlighten you ... Blood can exist separate from an organ such as the heart, still be blood, and bear an explanation in the absence of any interaction. In a similar vein, the heart can be completely drained of blood and remain the pumping organ that it is--still anthropically recognisable as a heart. Again no interaction is required. Both factors in good working order can beget the interaction (and consciousness would be more analogous to--or have more in common with--'interaction' than the two biological elements with their physical existence. ;-)

Shoe wrote: the urge to display ones ego - an act that you would only not see yourself doing in almost every post longer than 20 words that I've read of yours on this forum if you had no awareness at all of what the ego...

Jumping the gun again by claiming to know what I am and am not aware of. You should use the word 'seem' more often. (For someone who can't help the urge to accuse scientists of foolishly drawing premature conclusions, you do possess some unabashed lip service.) :lol:

Let me explain ...

I am very much aware of my ego and proud of its unrelenting presence (unlike the pharisaic few who abhor it and attempt to quash it). I'm pragmatic and embrace it because I know that, without it, revolutionaries and rebels who colour this amazing world would cease to exist; the Nazis would have taken over the world; and the meek would have no hope of inheriting the earth. (Many dreams would simply shatter.)

I know the ego will have to give way at some point, and when I feel it to be inappropriate with its desires, I do contemplate it and accept it without entertaining it. But only when I feel there is no other option and ultimately peace can be found in the acceptance of what inevitably is. Last, but certainly not least, when I opine certain facts that some may find unpleasant, I'm not afraid of coming across as arrogant--even when I praise myself in the presence of others, because, just as I can praise my fellow humans for their greatness, so can I praise myself in the recognition that I am a person, too. (To append: if you don't love yourself you will find it hard to love others. Embrace your changing nature--let it change by itself without forcing it--understand it, accept it, and then you'll be free.)

I am probably more enlightened than you and I'm not even a Buddhist! I only meditate 10 minutes a day and this is the effect it had on me: a realisation that the self is nothing but a sense that can fluctuate in strength and even vanish temporarily; an equanimity of mind that is more accessible than ever before; a shift in my default waking mind towards a balance that lies somewhere between Epicureanism and the best aspects of Theravada Buddhism. (I did exactly what the Buddha said--I found my way by not following him!) 8-)

Shoe wrote: If you don't know the definition: google "define irreducible." Either way, the fact that you point to the duality between consciousness and unconsciousness is itself a reduction. :lol:

Really? :lol:

You are only displaying your lack of intelligence here, my friend. Unconsciousness is not consciousness reduced; unconsciousness is its antonym--meaning consciousness is not present. As I said, the latter cannot be reduced, it is either on or off. If you still don't get this, I really can't help you. Absence isn't reduction. (Absence of awareness isn't reduction of awareness.) One may reduce the content of what one is aware of but consciousness, in its purity, remains until unconsciousness takes over. There is no duality in the same sense as red/blue. The analogue of what we are talking about is: first there is colour ... then there isn't. Got it? :mrgreen:

Shoe wrote: in fact consciousness can and does overlay the external world with its own information. The extreme form is know as hallucination.

This just shows how much you know about the brain ... zilch. This is like saying, 'Schizophrenics have nothing wrong with their brains.' (As if the brain does not possess synaptic data capable of overriding sensory input when it malfunctions.) :-D

Shoe wrote: read my explanation about the reason for capitalization and bold type or choosing to ignore it so you can lace your response with sarcasm and bolster your own argument with juvenile debate techniques.

There's that ego coming through ... see? I really riled you, didn't I? :twisted:

Funnily enough, I happened to be far more experienced than you in these matters as I have addressed and refuted the same argument by someone of the same calibre as you before. Here's what I told Snaggle--who upholded this ridiculous notion of 'scientism'-- in a thread about Christianity as a religion:

Oh dear! 'Scientism', that fallacious word invented for jealous and insecure religionists to somehow derogate science with. It's simple: Science just happens to be the best method of enquiry humanity has come up with. Of course it is convenient for the religious to stress that it is something imperfect, because, after all, we are God's faulty creations, without Him we are no good; we never know what we are talking about -- only God knows! :mrgreen:

If there is something better out there, I cannot imagine it to come from religion. Such method would simply be science improved as this one is not a religion or cult -- it is a method! A method that reinvents itself according to what is discovered; so already scientists recognise that its present form is not the best it can be; scientists know there is more to learn -- thus the 'scientism' pigeongole misrepresents science and is self-refuting. :-)

To reiterate what I've asserted before: real science does not claim any more than what empirical evidence implies. Perhaps science, as a human method, can only expand our ken so far -- if you want to make this epistemic argument. But you can hardly compare a method which has proved to be practical, for all of us, with mass delusions grounded on unreason. You have a computer right now, which enables you to communicate with people all over the world, because of what scientific research has uncovered about the way reality is observed to work -- not because the tenets of Christianity had something to say about computing and electrodynamics. :-D

Now here's a challenge for you, Snaggle: Name me one scientific dogma! And I repeat, 'That which contradicts scientifically established facts does not merit consideration.' :mrgreen:

As you can see, your farcical capitalisation of the word 'science' is the synonym of 'scientism' and easily refuted as people who adhere to it don't really understand how science works. And then there is this lovely quote by Daniel Dennett: 8-)

'There is the lurking suspicion that the most attractive feature of mind stuff is its promise of being so mysterious that it keeps science at bay forever. This fundamentally antiscientific stance of dualism is, to my mind, its most disqualifying feature, and is the reason why I adopt the apparently dogmatic rule that dualism is to be avoided at all costs. It is not that I think I can give a knock-down proof that dualism, in all its forms, is false or incoherent, but that, given the way dualism wallows in mystery, accepting dualism is giving up.'

Shoe wrote: Never even heard of Sheldrake.

You ... never ... heard ... of ... Sheldrake?! And you're a scientist, right? :shock:

Look him up. He committed career suicide when he trashed science just like you do. (He said it was dogmatic!) :-D

Shoe wrote: You go into saying 'Subjectivity is all we have and science acknowledges that we never witness the objective world directly'and then say 'A consensus is reached based on something undeniably objective'. Please, Summerlander, explain that one.

I already did with the human-bat plus peer-reviewed testing in the scientific community scenarios--but I think they just go over your head ... :-)

I'll iterate what's going on in a simpler way: you are falling into the trap of believing that Plato's Cave tell us nothing about reality. Indeed we are in Plato's figurative cave and all we see are the 'shadows' of the external world, so to speak, but those shadows do tell us something about reality as they give us measurable proportions with which we can create models of that which can only be observed indirectly. Consensus is arrived at as everyone gets the same results about the shadows which tell us something external (outside the cave) manipulates them. A similar principle applies in determining how old, what make and how far away a star must be (light wavelengh data, magnitude, curve etc.) I shouldn't have to tell you this! You're the scientist ... :-D

Anyway, the world outside the cave is undeniably out there (forget The Matrix scenario as it can neither be proved nor disproved--thus rendered useless in logical positivism) even if we only see projections inside the cave. Projections reflect reality. ;-)

Shoe wrote: Scientifically, I could say that dream figures exist and are real. They are, after all, observable and I can record that observation. Other people have similar subjective experiences.

Not so fast ... Other people have similar brains to yours, too! You can only say that dream figures exist phenomenally but they are most likely nothing but the illusion begotten by neuronic activity. In this case, the outside of the cave (which you can't see) is your brain activity. The dream is not what it seems--it's an illusion. The only thing you could possibly record in this case are words in your journal and your own brain activity in a lab. They would represent/convey your dream experience as the physical noumena--and, therefore, the source of the experience--and its description.

Shoe wrote: So, before one actually reaches any destination by moving a finite distance, one must go through the half-way point...

You are talking about Zeno's Paradox here. Man, this is so old and means jackshit! The whole thing falls apart when we see that, as distance decreases, so does time (which is assumed to be infinitely divisible as a concept in our minds). We all know that the further we get from the quantum, the larger the time increments--until we get the classical laws of physics. (And some would say infinities are only abstract mathematical concepts.) :geek:

And finally, the foot still feels the foot when the foot feels the shoe.

My suggestion that perhaps you should change your name to 'Barefoot' was completely impertinent to my subsequent Buddha quotation. And then I'm the one who is juvenile ... :lol:

I suggested 'Barefoot' because I felt that I had exposed you. As for what the Buddha said, it doesn't really matter what the foot comes into contact with. Anything solid apart from the foot will suffice in triggering its 'self-awareness', as it were. External points of reference; contact; cause-and-effect ... these are things that promote awareness of identity. Contact, sensations and awareness of existence are relative.

seanEE wrote: I like it, Whether its true or not is irrelevant to me, when people start trying to prove and convert people to there beliefs, madness starts happening. the aborigines thought the dream world was the real world. the native americans had dream catchers, all good stuff compared to todays HD tvs if you ask me, :D

Are you saying you prefer myths and ludicrous fantaries to science and technology? :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image

LMAO! :-D

Summerlander, you da man! :lol: