DRFseven

Yes, it's called <a href="http://www.asdreams.org/journal/articles/laberge5-3.htm" target="_blank">lucid dreaming</a>. There are techniques you can practice to increase your incidences of lucid dreaming. One method is to simply tell yourself every night before going to sleep that you will notice during your dream that your are, in fact, dreaming. Once the idea that lucid dreaming is possible becomes embedded in your knowledge base as an associated memory (a linked pattern of neural firing) it can be stimulated by other memories just as any other thought can.

Back in the seventies, many of us read Carlos Casteneda's The Teachings of Don Juan: A Yaqui Way of Knowledge, a fictional book (presented as documentary) that introduced lucid dreaming, as well as other more doubtful exercises, such as the "power run", where you run around the desert in the dark, raising your knees as high as your chest, which is supposed to keep you from running into things, and ingesting copious quantities of mescaline and Jimson weed extract as a technique for exploring the "immaterial plane of existence." He advised, for lucid dreaming, that you tell yourself every night before retiring that you will look at your hands in your dream. When you finally begin looking at your hands in your dreams, while recognizing the activity as a dream, you begin to try to look around and "really see" other things in your dreams. Supposedly, you can then turn your attention to all sorts of things in your dreamscape that are normally unavailable to us, such as the landscape and the characters with which our dreamscape are furnished. The idea was that you would discover that the dream is just as real as "reality"; it's just unavailable to us during consciousness. Casteneda presented all this as being taught by an old Yaqui Indian shaman called don Juan. I have to admit his books were fascinating and, back then, being enamored of all things magical or mystical, any kind of mind-game, we tried some of what he suggested, but not much "materialized." I think lucid dreaming is a fact, though, and I sometimes have quasi-lucid dreams where I have the feeling that "this doesn't really matter; I'm not really in danger because this is not real." I don't think I've ever experienced any control over my dreams, though, where I can decide to dream of flying, etc. I have occasionally experienced being able to return to a "good" dream after waking and when I return, I have that awareness of it being a dream. It's never as good after I return, though, LOL.

John Page

owleye:

Here's a couple of links that might seem to support excre's general theme:

<a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/ASSC/baars/vogeley1.html" target="_blank">THE PREFRONTAL CORTEX AND THE SELF</a>

<a href="http://www.walshlab.org/newsphotos/epilepsy-gazette1997.html" target="_blank">woman who hears voices during seizure</a>

Cheers, John

Jonesy

The answers to your question about the border between mind and body have already achieved some spectacular progress.

Please read this article, by Dr. Tom Chalko, in which he makes the connection. To summarize briefly, our emotions, feelings etc. (the 'non-physical' attributes) seem to be resulting from electro-photonic processes. The article below is really amazing, because if true, the implications are staggering. And some of this has been already experimantally verified, such as the amazing memory storage capability of a SINGLE ELECTRON:

<a href="http://NUjournal.net/choice.html" target="_blank">http://NUjournal.net/choice.html</a>


Also, have a look at this book, which I believe inspired the author of the above article to write his article:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm" target="_blank">http://www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm</a>


PS. beware of the moderators and some people on this forums. They will (once again as if they're stuck in some mental warp or something) allege that it is me who wrote the 'Thiaoouba Prophecy' and they will then proceed to ridicule whatever they could find on the above websites and websites related to them. I simply let people know about these websites and readings.

Try and make up your own mind about the article (Choice) and the book (Thiaoouba Prophecy)

PPS. One more time - don't believe any ridiculing bullshit you see written about me and the posts I put forward. If they suggest that you look at any of my previous posts - please do - and try and ignore their false descriptions of my posts (that they advertise a cult, are loony, crazy, etc...)

Use your intelect and not someone elses.

owleye

John...

"I'm saying it should not be considered software in the sense that there is no proof someone/thing authored it."

Why should you require that "someone/thing author it" in order to count it as software? Natural selection would seem to be sufficient, if you believe Darwin's theory of evolution. Are you suggesting that software does not exist apart from minds?

"Hooray - now, would you describe it as concrete or abstract or what?"

Describe what? The mind? If I was speaking about your mind or my mind, I'd be speaking about a concrete entity. If I was speaking about minds generally, I'd be speaking about minds in the abstract.

"I don't see anything here that forces a conclusion that some of the speculations/definitions in this thread are wrong. Just because its a mystery to you shouldn't stop the rest of us trying."

And I don't see anything here that forces a conclusion that your speculations/definitions are immune from criticism.

"No, its not accurate enough. e.g. I perceive a penguin. I perceive that the penguin I was perceiving is not a real penguin. This is as far as empirical realism goes."

Empirical realism would say that if your seeing a penquin is a verifiably true experience, the penquin is real. Some other theory, perhaps yours, would say that observations statements such as "I see a penquin", whether true or not, does not make the penquin real. There is no real penguin. The penquin that is the object of perception is (for the anti-realist/constructivist with respect to observations) what convention establishes is a penguin and conventions are products of the mind.

"But when you say that an imagined thing is not "real" there is a contradiction in you philosophy - you have perceived the instance of a penguin in question - whatever form it may actually take."

Once again, I have to drag out my dictionary. Your private definitions are really annoying.

real. Adj. 1. true; not merely ostensible or nominal. 2. actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious. 3. having actual, rather than imaginary, existence: real events. 4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victim. 5. genuine; authentic. 6. unfeigned or sincere: real sympathy; real friend 7. Philos. a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the non-existent. b. actual as opposed to possible or potential. c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent. 8. of or pertaining to a real property.

My use of 'real' was sense 7 c which I believe is consistent with the other definitions. I have no idea what your use is.

"Consider the following argument: If imaginations exist within the mind and they can be perceived then they must be real therefore the mind must be real!"

Is there an argument over whether or not the mind is real? I thought we were arguing (if in fact it was an argument) over whether imaginary penquins are real?


"The accuracy I seek to inject is merely recognition that our organs of perception to not directly experience all objects in reality (we went through the sun example) and, as a result, we must admit that there are real things that are external to our perception and real things that are internal to it."

What, in your theory, is internal to perception, that cannot be perceived as external to perception?

"Part of (reality)."

What part?

"The words "I" and "me" just refer to a different viewpoint of "you". The use of a word doesn't change the object, only the context in which it is to be seen."

This interpretation is undoubtedly part of the reason why we are having difficulty communicating.

"Your inability to recognize the underlying reason that views are subjective is very confusing. You started talking about object and subject always being different. How about when you stand alone in a room and talk about yourself. Are there two "yous"? No. Any difference if you look in a mirror. No, but you might be able to see yourself a little more objectively."

A view can be subjective, even about myself. Why can't I have a view (even about myself) that is objective?

"Of course they would. As you have mentioned before, we lack the ability to experience the actual contents (or perhaps "state" would be better) of someone elses mind. We can draw an analogy with the unobserved tree falling in the forest - just because you don't perceive it does not mean that it was not imagined."

We were speaking about the physical entities that comprise the mind (in your theory). You mentioned that they would not be observed. I had understood you to equate the physical entities with the mental entities. Now you speak of unobserved trees falling in the forest. What about observed trees falling in the forest. Are they not physical?

"Are you hereby saying you are infallible and truth is ruled by your own definitions? Have you considered that empirical realism may be flawed requiring new interpretation in the light of new understandings of how the brain/mind might work?"

Are you suggesting that you are immune from criticism? I have not used private definitions as you have. My theory of empirical realism is not really on trial here. It is not me that you will have to convince if you want your theory to become viable.

owleye

Gurdur

Well, now, every theory gets put on trial here sooner or later.

Owleye,
Could you please use the quote function, since otherwise it becomes far too difficult to read your posts and work out who's saying what.

I do not want to have to simply ignore your posts because of this problem (which I would believe would affect other lurkers too), but in such long posts a simple scrolling down becomes almost ineviatably necesssary.

John Page

owleye:

I don't require so, I'm merely pointing out that the term "software" in its commonly used context refers to programs written by humans. Are you suggesting that computer software arose directly from Darwinian evolution? I think not. I am saying that the concept of software exists in the mind.
Let's say its your mind. If it is concrete, can I see a picture of it? If not why not?
True, and I never claimed so!!!!
It should be obvious from the above two contradictory quotes why I can't comprehend what you think is real.
If I am not mistaken you also use real in the sense of definition #2 above and, in any event 7c "independent of experience" seems at odds with empirical realism!! Are you saying perception is not experience in empirical realism?
I can show you a physical penguin, can you show me a physical mind?
You cannot read my thoughts, for example, but I experience them.
The part we experience. (You may recall this is relation to "imaginary things" participating in reality and you asked for a definition of "participate").
Why? Seems clear to me.
You can, but it would never be completely objective since it is sensed through you.
To clarify, I'm saying that an abstract instance of the tree exists in the mind which is a process supported by a physical substrate, most likely the brain. So, under this theory, when I perceive a tree there is a physical brain event/state that represents a tree. If this were not so, we could expect to find (physical) trees inside our head. In fact, there have been discoveries of pictorial images in brain measuring equipment - this is also consistent with a highly idealized concept of tree.

As to observed trees falling in a forest - assuming you mean observed in external reality (as opposed to perceiving imagined trees), evidence of physicality could of course be collected. This includes, eye witness accounts, before and after photographs etc.
But you are using empirical realism as a yardstick so I'm just trying to wean out the differences and analyze them! I'm not trying to attack you and I don't think I'm guilty of inventing private definitions to justify my arguments and I don't think I've used any words wildly out of context.

I'd be grateful if you could address the apparent contradictions and gaps highlighted in my previous posts (as I have sincerely tried to do in my posts). I don't doubt your sincerity and I'm trying to understand your definitions of real, mind, abstract, concrete and physical in a consistent manner.

Cheers, John

John Page

I took a look. Undoubtedly there are phenomena of which man has a very limited understanding and speculative theories are useful in exploring what the truth might be.

However, apart from mentioning some of the mechanisms that could be involved in consciousness, I couldn't see any results that showed mechanisms that definitely were involved.

My other observation is that the texts wandered between mystical explanations and possible physical bases for consciousness. I think the world is a curious enough place without the former.

Thanks for sharing the thoughts.

Cheers, John

excreationist

owleye:
Q1. Do unobservables exist? -- i.e., What is the ontological status of the class of so-called theoretical entities that comprise the standard model used in contemporary physics and chemistry?
Yes... and plants would have existed before people saw them, and the inside of the moon exists with some specific composition that we may not have explicitly observed yet.

Q2. Are theoretical statements true? -- i.e., is what scientists say of the world really true of the world (or is it only what can be known of the world, or is it only the best explanation to date we have of the world)?
I think scientific theories are just the best theories that account for current observations that we have. They don't guarantee that things will act the same way in the future although it is probable IMO that they have good predictive value.

Those theories would be the best theories that we have at the time, and assuming that they fit our observations, they

Q3. Are observation statements true? -- i.e., Is the moon that is allegedly seen real, or merely a conventional construction?
Well if someone is seeing a shape that they recognize to be the moon then either it is a hallucation/dream or the experience is involves the detection of the moon. I guess "observe" implies seeing real objects (rather than imagined ones) so it would rule out hallucinations/dreams so the moon would be seen and be real.

Note that sometimes my answers aren't certain - i.e. that thing is *definitely* real, etc.

I think I've given what I believe being real means several times. However, if I haven't, I'll give it here. Reality is what exists apart from minds. Thus, unicorns are not real. They exist only as products of the mind.
I guess our minds aren't real then... ? Also, concepts that no mind has ever imaged or is capable of imagining would exist apart from our minds... Are those things are real as well... ?

More later...

Mr. Sammi

Owleye, John, and iidb..,

Only things of the mind can be altered by the mind. Things from without the mind that is represented withn the mind cannot be originally altered by the mind.

This is a definitive (à la Sammi) relation between what really exists in the mind VS. what exists independent of the mind.

An example seems necessary to me. If one through some sort of sorcery has imaginings that a wind is blowing, THEN IF, by the use of mind one forces the wind to cease, and all the sorcery in your world says, "no more wind, star", then the wind was definitively a product of the mind. Alternatively, if while the wind is raging (especially on a hot hot night), one minds (is that a verb of the mind?), "wind, I command thee to cease", (super ego at play), but no matter what the mind wants, the wind still blows, even at times stronger, then it is a definitive, that the wind is independent of the mind.

So, in a conclusionary reiteration, I say that only things of the mind can be affected by the mind, AND anything independent of the mind can withstand any sort of assailing by the mind.

I hope this clears some concern in the air and not in MY MIND.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

I was thinking of a few examples which should help clarify the Border that John seeks using mind-dependent and mind-independent as related to the body.

I said that if something cannot be directly affected by the mind, then it is independent of the mind. Independent of the mind means there is only a representative reltionship between the mind and what is being represented in the mind.

Take for example, the bodily function of pee-ing. You are in your lawnchair reading a fantastic book about life at twice the speed of light, you feel like pee-ing, the mind says I gotta pee, the mind replies wait until I finish this chapter. Ten minutes later, you strut inside and find bodily relief in your bathroom. This case points to pee-ing as being of the mind.

Same scene, except when you the body says I gotta pee, and the mind says, wait a minute i want to finish this chapter, the body further replies, no way, and you pee in the lawnchair. This second example shows this act of wanting to pee as outside the mind. Ah ha, old age catching up, AND/OR the mind border has shrunk. EEK, I no longer have a big strong mind.

It is at this point WE will FIND the border of the mind.

What think you all? Has the nailing begun?

Sammi Na Boodie ()