What are dreams?

[Influx]

You claim this is not testable but it is and Scientists are putting the hypothesis to the test. You don't believe that they formulate hypothesis then leave it there do you?

It's not a claim, it's a fact. Show me where, in any lab, the "psi' phenomena can be readily tested and the test are reproducible?

From the fields of consciousness that are all around us, its comparable to a fish in the ocean. The fish is made out of water, swims in the water but is oblivious to the water.

What is consciousness? What are these fields? Are these fields an intrinsic part of reality? Space? Why cant I measure them, study them, see them. Or whatnot? Consciousness needs a substrate, that is, the human brain to manifest itself. Despite the a massive plethora of various spiritual new age belief systems, or even the old belief systems, the existence of on out of body consciousness has not been demonstrated. Like I said, hopes, beliefs, ideas and such, but none of them stand up to the rigorous scientific method.

If you make such on extraordinary claim, I think the evidence that supports the claim, must be just as extraordinary. As such, I live my life trusting in my senses, they have not failed me even once. Using these same senses, I do not find, the afterlife, the megamind or whatever, the super consciousness, or any psi phenomena.

I can't feel, see, hear or touch this super consciousness, I can't detect it with any instruments, or measure it with said instruments. I cant detect it with my mind, the huge amount of meditation that I have done, the numerous mind over body experiments that I have tried, none of them, have even hinted at a consciousness that is separate from my brain. In essence this consciousness field is invisible, undetectable and unknowable, yet...how do we know it exists?

No you don't understand what the neurologist are saying in these cases. There is no brain there at all, not that parts are missing here is what the doctor said in one case involving a little boy I will underline the key point for you:

No this is flat out wrong, in all cases of hydrocephalus, a small fraction of the brain remains, no one has been found to lack the brain completely. The skull is usually filled with cerebra-spinal fluid, whatever this fluid has any effect on cognitive functions in these individuals in currently unknown.

But you missed the point, what I am saying is, even in the remote model of consciousness, where the brain is the transceiver, would you not still need the brain? After all, how would you receive this consciousness "signal" if the brain, the transceiver is damaged or gone? If anything, hydrocephalus, demonstrates that the consciousness resides in the brain rather the outside of it. Or is this consciousness transceiver located somewhere else in the body, in that case why do we need the brain at all?

[whitenightf3]

It's not a claim, it's a fact. Show me where, in any lab, the "psi' phenomena can be readily tested and the test are reproducible?

Check out Dr Dean Radin if you bothered to read his books you would have all the information that answers your questions. In The Noetic Universe he shows you how Scientists have dealt with the objections of the sceptics.
Remember the real sceptics are there to help move the science forwards by suggesting ways that the experimental protocols can be tightened up. This they have done and I will leave you with this statement from sceptic Ray Hyman:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/10/n ... verse.html



"...members of the scientific community often judge the parapsychological claims
without first hand knowledge of the experimental evidence. Very few of the scientific
critics have examined even one of the many experimental reports on psychic
phenomena. Even fewer, if any, have examined the bulk of the parapsychological
literature... Consequently, parapsychologists have justification for their complaint that
the scientific community is dismissing their claims without a fair hearing..."
Ray Hyman


I will answer you regarding consciousness and people born without brains more fully later.

I do remind you that Neurologist Dr Leshner stated that his patient was born with no distinguishable brain matter. Please look at Dr Leshner's statement again he is not just talking about Hydrancephaly he is talking about the extreme form of the condition.
Now you can dismiss him if you want to, but he is the specialist doctor with intricate knowledge of the case in question. So unless your going to invoke some form of conspiracy theory or unless you yourself are a neuroscientists I don't think you have any other option other than to accept the statement prima facie and in good faith:


Hydrancephaly is very common - we see several case a year at our university hospital -
but there's a tremendous difference between having a regional area of brain
maldevelopment, and having a condition called extreme hydrancephaly, where there is
NO DEFINABLE residual brain tissue.
Dr Robert Leshner who is Professor of peadiatric neurology at the Medical
College Virginia US.

[Influx]

One of the few biologists to propose a radically novel approach to these questions is Dr Rupert Sheldrake. In his book A New Science of Life Sheldrake rejected the idea that the brain is a warehouse for memories and suggested it is more like a radio receiver for tuning into the past. Memory is not a recording process in which a medium is altered to store records, but a journey that the mind makes into the past via the process of morphic resonance.

Oh wow, that is pure insanity, it would be labeled as such if the concept of time travel wasn't so popular.

Hey, can you take a drink love?

Can you eat music?

Can you take drink from the radio?

What is time?

Time is a concept! How can you go back into a concept?

What is a concept?

...an abstract idea or a mental symbol sometimes defined as a "unit of knowledge," built from other units which act as a concept's characteristics...

So Sheldrake thinks our brains go back into an abstract idea and access the memories from there.

Sorry, this is utter, irrational nonsense.

I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a cesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.

Here is something I wrote a while back in the time thread.

The universe could care less about time and our limited systems of measuring the universe. That is, if it could care! We are, as humans, who die and are imperfect, are simple projecting our fears and shortcomings onto the cosmos and expect it to behave as such. Time is nothing more than an invention of the human condition and suffering. The universe has only movement of the celestial objects, a movement IN THE volume of space that can only be seen in relation to the celestial bodies that occupy that volume. There is NO inherent value or condition that can be linked to time in the structure of space. The illusion of time arises only in our minds due to the cyclical nature of objects that move in the volume of space. A volt meter measures volts that ARE present in the structure of the wire! The clock does NOT measure the "something" in the universe, but is rather an imaginary synchronization device made to organize our lives. Movement controls t

So as you can see, I take all theories based on time travel as flat out crazy.

I think the burden is on you to first prove that time travel is real, and then we will continence...perhaps in a different thread?

But, can I make a kind suggestion? Read this thread.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=10&t=445

I am not going to debate you on the finer points of neurology as I am not qualified, But I will say this, Hydroncephaly is common, mostly in newborns, who usually die. What you refer to, are the exceptional case, and these are very rare indeed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephaly

[whitenightf3]

So Sheldrake thinks our brains go back into an abstract idea and access the memories from there.

No not brains how can your brain go anywhere, he is talking about accessing memories through the mind and the brain tunes into the mind via fields which are all around us.

As for neurology like it was pointed out by Dr Leshner he was talking about extreme cases of hydraencephaly.

Now its well know in science that James Law states

If you wish to upset the law that all crows are black, you mustn't seek to show that no
crows are; it is enough if you prove one single crow to be white."
William James

All it needs is one person born with no brain to show that the assumption that consciousness arises in the brain is false.
In fact another phenomena genetic memory through organ transplants shows us that memories reside in every cell. The ancients understood this concept that the whole universe is permeated with Consciousness. And I think that is what todays scientists in the van guard are now beginning to grasp.

BTW I just came across this documentary where Cambridge Biologist Dr Kit Pedler talks about brains, minds and fields and entanglement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1gb5KhAjiA

"I think a scientist would have to be massively ignorant, or a confirmed bigot, to deny
the evidence that the mind can make connections through space, time and matter in
ways which probably have nothing to do with the ordinary senses. And also that he
would find it difficult to deny that these strange effects are compatible with current
thinking in physics, and may in the future become part of an extended science, in
which they're no longer regarded as paranormal, but as normal."
Dr Kit Pedler

[Influx]

No not brains how can your brain go anywhere, he is talking about accessing memories through the mind and the brain tunes into the mind via fields which are all around us.

Of course not, not the physical brains, but time travel is still involved and that still remains an absurd notion. At least to me, with my understanding of time.

All it needs is one person born with no brain to show that the assumption that consciousness arises in the brain is false.

This has nothing to do with consciousness, it just raises a many questions, but proves nothing. If it proves anything at all, its how limited science is, and how limited our knowledge is. It does not prove time travel or provide a deeper understanding of what consciousness is. Or haven't you heard about a chicken that lived with no head whatsoever?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken

Does this prove chickens don't need heads?

In fact another phenomena genetic memory through organ transplants shows us that memories reside in every cell.

I agree with you on this phenomena, but why does memory reside in a cell, maybe it is the electrical morphic field that cells generate? Ala, THE BODY ELECTRIC. Amazing book.

"I think a scientist would have to be massively ignorant, or a confirmed bigot...,"

I am not a scientist, just a bored layman.

[whitenightf3]

Of course not, not the physical brains, but time travel is still involved and that still remains an absurd notion. At least to me, with my understanding of time.


Time is related to mind therefore time travel will involve mind. When you think about any future event whether it is next weeks holiday, or sporting event in a sense you are time travelling.

Of course I have heard of Mike and the case reinforces the point consciousness does not arise in the brain. This is a dogmatic assumption held to by those who are trying and struggling to maintain a materialistic ideology imo.

This has nothing to do with consciousness, it just raises a many questions, but proves nothing. If it proves anything at all, its how limited science is, and how limited our knowledge is.

It has everything to do with consciousness because the traditional view from neurology is that consciousness arises in the brain. That is why materialist argue when you die you cease to exist. However, this notion is just a cultural meme that becomes a dogma if one refuses to think about it. Remember the Ancient Greeks believed that all their thinking was done from the heart that was their cultural indoctrination.
Of course we have people reporting NDE's which materialist struggle to explain within their restricted paradigm. People who have such experiences access information a priori other than through the five sense. We also see this happening in hypnotic regression. And of course then there is Lucid dreaming which I suppose is one of the themes you would want to explore, but it will have to be at a later time because I am off to dream.

[Moby]

Dear Whitenight

Briefly. Have you ever yourself, or ever heard of a scenario of great forboding, where something has either just happened, or a feeling that something may happen, and this thing is quite awful or frightening; and the thing has happened to someone else in your presence or you have heard of such a thing near to you?

Similarly, has your subconscious never warned that the outcome of some action or activity that you are taking will cause you harm if you continue?

I was once driving along an icy snow covered road in a sports car, it was very fast but well equipped. My partner asked me if it was difficult to drive, or was it enjoyable (being a sports car)? I said that it was OK. but that the road conditions were awful, and I had a terible feeling that we were in imminent danger of turing over into an icy lake.
I took great care, and continued on our way. A few minutes later, a boy-racer pulled behind us, girding me to race with his friends in their car. I payed no attention and continued to drive within the limits of the conditions.

They overtook with a terrible roar of their sports car, and passed us easily, accelerating away. Five minutes later we saw them upturned in a ravine, two hundered feet down the side of the mountain. very nearly submerged.

Discuss

Moby

P.S. The point I should make is that if pigeons have an organelle in their brain for global navigation (using the stars or magnetism) could it be possible that humans have evolved an ability to see briefly into other dimensions? Over 90 per cent of the brain's function is relativley uncharted.

[bhardwaj]

According to me dream is the thinking of man.What he want and what he think all comes in form of dreams.Sometimes it is related to past life also.When we are thinking about anything whole day then automatically it not go away from our mind and we also see this in dreams also.

[Brigit Bara]

What are dreams?

Can we gain insight into the workings of our brain, our mind, by understanding our dreams? What new knowledge would we gain if we, as a whole, understood the dreaming process.

I think what makes this question so interesting is that we even need to ask it at all. In other words, it is indicative of the fact that we don't know much about our own brains; though it is the most complex known structure in the entire universe, and is inside of each one of us, we are in fact ignorant of many of the processes which it is carrying out all of the time. The more we take the time to understand its processes, the more deliberately we can direct those processes to attain aims which we set consciously.

Dreaming is clearly an important activity to the brain. The great pioneer in neurofeedback, Margaret Ayers, through her work in EEGs, noticed that specific stages of sleep were missing from people who are psychologically disturbed.

We can also see that it is a priority for the brain to carry out dreaming by the fact that it diverts so much energy away from the body and to the brain during REM. The respiratory rythms and heart rate increase, and the majority of the body's oxygen supply is directed to the brain. The body's movements are inhibited and the sensory input from the outside world is almost completely shut out. EEGs then show that the brain goes into a period of almost frenetic activity. I have seen PET scans which show a dreaming brain with symetrical activity in both hemispheres. Researchers say it is as active as a waking brain. The activity is concentrated also "in areas that are associated with new experiences" (I assume this means the frontal lobes).

My thoughts are that dreams are a part of the consolidation process, in which the brain is going through its recent experiences and determining their significance. Determining what should be stored in long term memory and what is not is a major expenditure of our brain's resources, in my opinion. It is constantly asking what the meaning of our experiences and recent learning is to us. By dreaming, and remembering our dreams, our mind works out what to store in our memory, and how it fits with previous experience; and sometimes, when we remember our dreams, we are able to think over the emotional content and this helps our brain "encode" what it has learned.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encoding_(memory) ]

When memories are too traumatic, and the brain is not able to assimilate a sudden shock, loss, separation, bereavement, or trauma, you have a brain which has locked away a toxic memory in order to continue functioning for the moment. This is what is meant by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. However, later, the unconsolidated memory keeps intruding on waking life and normal brain function. These traumatic memories have been accessed by neurofeedback methods which encourage theta frequencies; theta frequencies are associated with hypnotic states when the conscious mind "lets down its guard," so to speak. We all pass through theta for some minutes as we fall asleep, so the unconscious is potentially allowed to bring up deeper issues and concerns which we do not usually address.

So consolidation and sorting through our experiences are very important to the smooth functioning or our minds.

Now the take home point. I read a shocking statistic on the internet recently - for whatever that is worth! (: - that 65% of dreams have negative content. This is unacceptable. I am not a lucid dreamer and have never tried any lucid dreaming equipment. But it seems to me that greater control of our dreams and a more positive cast on our dream content would be very beneficial to our overall brain function and should be attainable for each one of us with a little awareness and a little effort.

Sweet dreams! And I mean that.

[MosaicDave]

My thoughts are that dreams are a part of the consolidation process, in which the brain is going through its recent experiences and determining their significance. Determining what should be stored in long term memory and what is not is a major expenditure of our brain's resources, in my opinion. It is constantly asking what the meaning of our experiences and recent learning is to us. By dreaming, and remembering our dreams, our mind works out what to store in our memory, and how it fits with previous experience; and sometimes, when we remember our dreams, we are able to think over the emotional content and this helps our brain "encode" what it has learned.

Lately, I've been having sort of an idea about this - the view, I mean, that dreams are somehow related to, more or less, processing the day's experiences, etc.

The thing is, how often do you have dreams that are in any way related to "recent current events"? For me, anyway, its really basically never. I mean, even if you have some pretty intense and/or significant events take place during a day - like say you have some type of accident and narrowly escape getting seriously injured, or you're embroiled in the middle of an intense and unresolved emotional interaction or conflict with a close person like a spouse or child - you don't really have dreams that are about that. Or at least, just speaking for myself, I don't. Again speaking for myself, dreams are always these totally off-the-wall, completely out of context, and-now-for-something-completely-different sort of experiences, usually highly emotionally charged and with intense sensation, but usually unrelated to the events of the day, unless afterwards you try to analyze them and fabricate connections to the days events - but those are really the conscious mind's interpretation, not really the dream itself, per se.

Just a thought....

--dc

[Brigit Bara]

dc writes: The thing is, how often do you have dreams that are in any way related to "recent current events"? For me, anyway, its really basically never.

So we are now testing whether dreaming has to do with consolidating recent memories and experiences, and we find that the dream we have at night does not correspond with the days' events. Good.

1. First we have to define "recent events." I personally would say that this would include, mainly, events from the last 2 or even 3 months. (This is the length of time that neuroscientist Daniel J Siegel suspects it takes for our brain to consolidate a memory, and he bases that on different types of amnesia from various closed head injuries in which there has been damage to the hypocampus. I can provide the passage if needed, it is very interesting. Although he is not talking about dreaming.)

2. Next, we have to take into account how many dreams we have, and how many we recall. Let's assume each sleep cycle takes 90 minutes, and culminates in REM. In that case, most people would have 4 - 6 sleep cycles per night. It is said in sleep research that to remember a dream, it is usually necessary to wake up during or right after an REM state. So you can see that we may not have much recall of our own dreams. Particularly if you tend to wake up before the last has completed, and no REM was attained for that cycle. I don't remember many dreams, so this fits my experience. It makes it hard to say there is a central purpose to dreaming without looking at a lot of studies. But who cares, we will anyway.

Again speaking for myself, dreams are always these totally off-the-wall, completely out of context, and-now-for-something-completely-different sort of experiences, usually highly emotionally charged and with intense sensation, but usually unrelated to the events of the day, unless afterwards you try to analyze them...

"And now for something completely different!" This is a great objection. For example, someone might say, "Why did I dream about having a fleet of ships, when I have not been near a ship or even a large body of water in my recent experience?"

I think this is because our brains, again, are doing much more than we are aware of in our conscious experience. It is entirely possible that the person in this example did have a recent experience with ships. No matter how trivial, this cannot be ruled out. Let's say in this case, the individual was taking a walk several weeks ago. A car drove by slowly with the windows down, and a song was playing. In the song, the lyrics mentioned a ship. The conscious mind does not find this significant, or only fleetingly so, and it is immediately forgotten. But I think it is possible that our unconscious actually listens to all of our thoughts, our intuitions, and does receive and make note of all impressions from all of our somatic and sensory inputs. The brain must then go through these inputs and decide what will be kept in long term memory and how, if at all, it reinforces our previous learning - or, perhaps an experience defies our usual understanding and requires attention because it has no explanation, and our conscious mind did not really notice it. (Scientists sometimes report having a very clear dream about a problem they are working on which helps entirely reframe it or which gives a new solution.)

Everything is being observed by some part of our brain - the unconscious let's say - and only some of it can be kept. I think that is the assumption I am making. And dreams possibly are a conversation within our mind, especially with the part of our brain that has to put things in long term memory and determine meaning.

It's a little part speculation. But I like this theory a long shot better than you-know-who's (starts with an F)! In fact it's much more intelligent and useful than his.

[Julian Braggins]

Sometimes dreams are the subconscious telling us what we are too dumb to realise in real life. Many years ago I had repeated dreams of being at the helm of a big ship going up a river and grounding many times, or driving a bus that went into a tunnel and the rock roof getting lower and lower until it got stuck. The explanation given by a psychologist friend after my wife left me (for another woman) was that the vehicle was a metaphor for my life, and my life was heading for the rocks!
On a more physical level, recurring dreams of wanting to relieve myself, but every toilet I was able to find was blocked to overflowing, were telling me to wake up to go, I had an enlarged prostate at the time.

Induced 'waking daydreams' have taken me back to a presumed previous life, very mundane rural life in the nineteenth century as a boy working on a farm with names and places that I was never able to confirm.

Don't knock the previous life thing, I know a psychiatrist, Dr Peter Ramster who did a series of regressions to previous lives with four subjects, with very good controls, took them from Australia to Europe and they tracked their stories and the facts they turned up were impossible to explain, other than that they had the memories of people who had lived in those places when they said they had. The film was released here in the 80's on TV and the book on it around then and reprinted several years ago. I know two of the subjects, and they went on to get degrees in psychology, one of whom interpreted my dreams.

[Brigit Bara]

Julian Braggins, you mention reoccuring dreams, and those seem like they should be in a class by themselves. In your case, the interpretation seemed obvious to you and your psychologist after the loss of your spouse. However, I wonder if your own interpretation is much more instructive:

Sometimes dreams are the subconscious telling us what we [don't] realise in real life.

So in your view, a recurring dream is raising an issue which we need to address or resolve - perhaps even a physical condition which needs a prognosis. It makes me really curious to know if there was an instructive hint within the reoccuring dream, rather than it being a picture of an inevitable catastrophic outcome. Perhaps in the case of a recurring dream, there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation, but the unconscious simply needs the conscious mind to address the issue/emotion in some capacity, rather than leaving it as a loose end. Ex: "Why does this person keep saying that their divorces, maxed credit cards, inappropriate emails, and persuing a married person is not their fault? Are you going to read the signs, or totally ignore this? It looks like nothing but trouble to me. You are usually so brilliant. Let me know. Love, your subconscious." Ex: "You were a little unprepared for that wonderful opportunity, don't you think? So I am picturing you missing a class. Or even your pants. Cheers, your subconscious."

In any case, I find it is always helpful when looking at the brain's activities to remember that it takes an enormous part of our body's resources to operate. It is only 3 pounds but takes more than a fourth of our total energy budget to run. Any activity which is carried out either has a vital purpose, or is potentially a waste of our very limited cognitive resources. For that reason, I think there is a good possibility that dreaming plays an important role in the optimal working of our minds; it is not likely an inefficiency or waste of mental energy.

Although, many dreams seem very random and pointless. Perhaps this tells us that there is plenty of room for us to direct dreaming to some degree, and to be much more purposeful in how and what we remember (ie, "anchoring" anyone?) from our daily experience. What will we remember from this month, a half a year from now? That is what I think our brain has to work out. It's always such a mixed bag for me, I never know what I will remember.

[Julian Braggins]

Re: What are dreams?

Answer to Post by Brigit Bara » Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:14 am

All good points. I too think that directed dreams may be of help, i.e. asking the subconscious for answers in that time just before going to sleep, but find that recall in detail is not good so have more or less given up trying.

Possibly that is a result of too big an input from my 'grasshopper mind'. I spent many hours a day trying to put together the 'big picture ' of the universe, hence why I frequent sites like this, EU, anomalous Archeology, Miles Mathis for physics problems and very good answers, Victor Zammit for bringing together all forms of Psychic Phenomena, alternative medicine particularly for chronic diseases, and Global Warming sites to argue with those who think CO2 is a danger, rather than a necessary plant food that has greened the Earth spectacularly over the last 30 years or so. Plus politics and Economic theory.

My time is limited as I'm pushing 80, and if there is an afterlife, which seems probable, and reincarnation, again probable, I want to be in a good position to come back to do the most good. Hey, it's good fun and keeps me out of mischief

[Brigit Bara]

Julian Braggins writes, "Possibly that is a result of too big an input from my 'grasshopper mind'."

Ha! Thanks for the hillarity. (: I have been shaking my head chuckling. I have this picture of this grasshopper triggered by the slightes movement and leaping off, usually into the "deep weeds."

There is something to be said for that though. The microbiologist Johnjoe McFadden wrote an article for the Gardian along those lines:

New research by Ap Dijksterhuis and his colleagues at the University of Amsterdam suggests that we would be better off thinking about the simple choices, and leaving the life-changing decisions to our unconscious mind.

Dijksterhuis asked his test subjects to choose between four hypothetical cars on the basis of a set of specifications (whether the car had a sunroof, low mileage, etc) that could be either simple (only four specifications) or complex (12 specifications). One group was given four minutes to consider the problem; the other group was shown the specification and then immediately distracted by another task. Surprisingly, the subjects with plenty of time to think fared better when faced with a simple decision (four specifications) but worse when the problem was more complex (12 specifications).

This and other similar experiments go to the heart of the vexing question of whether consciousness is any use to us. Our brain seems to be split between the actions we can take with little or no conscious control (although scientists prefer to talk about "attention"), such as riding a bike, and those that require conscious attention, such as arithmetic. We tend to think of our unconscious mind as the more primitive arm of cognition, with consciousness in reserve for the hard problems. But Dijksterhuis's research suggests we have it the wrong way around.

emph added
For fun.

PS/OT Also, Julian Braggins again: on past lives.
I was researching a subject some time ago which landed me on some sites I would not normally visit. I was surprised to find how many authors and posters implicitly accepted the reality of past and future human lifespans, supposedly experienced by the same individual. You are one of the very few people I have ever run across who offered any sort of potential evidence for saying this. An alternative is that each of us is totally unique in form, structure, and frequencies - a particular occurance in all the universe for all time. Cheers