Is there any real difference between reality and a dream?

[DaveC426913]

Well I wanted to establish if you thought lucid dreams were conscious before I could make my next point. Do you think there can be any conscious in sleep or dream state? If vivid dreams are conscious, then what is the exact mental state that changes from a regular dream to a vivid one? Does the conscious "light" come on? Often vivid dreams start off as regular dreams. What is the "switch" that changes? Vivid dreamers can recognize and take control of normal dreams.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? If so, would you consider yourself conscious during that?

Here is that guy again talking about lucidity in dreams:

Agreed. I definitely think there is a continuum from consciouisness to unconsciousness, yes. i.e. lucid dreaming definitely has some elements of consciousness about it.

Personally, I have all range of dreams and conscious-unconscious states. I often have vivid dreams, I've had dreams where I know I'm dreaming, I've had dreams where I have been - repeatedly - able to change the outcome, and I've had waking states that blur the line with unconscious (as I'm falling asleep I am often able to suspend myself in a state where I am conscious yet unable to focus on a thought before it slips out of ... my thoughts. I can keep this state indefinitely, and can observe myself in this state. "Well, isn't that interesting. I cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I was thinking about getting ready to go to work ... and ... Well isn't that interesting. I again cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I wonder how long I can keep this up.").


While I agree that, in lucid dreaming, there is defintely an element of consciousness, it does not follow that when you are dreaming you are in a conscious state, which is the original claim that I am refuting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who says the true reality has to be scientific?
Or that science would work in it?

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).



Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

 

[kote]

No, my claim is that morals and ethics do not help define conscious from unconscious. In less diplomatic language, I think your initial statement is irrelevant.

What does the definition of consciousness have to do with whether or not there is a meaningful distinction between the experience of true and false ontologies? The entire discussion of levels of consciousness presupposes brains are real and dreams are a function of brain states. This assumes an answer to the original question.

Philosophy has a long way to go before discussions of brain states can tell us anything about basic ontology, starting with solving the problem of induction. Until we get past that, psychology has no place in deciding whether or not we are living in a matrix induced dream or what it would mean if we were. Meaning still belongs to the realm of ethics and aesthetics.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).
Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

 

[Sorry!]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

I don't recall anyone saying this. Quit taking things out of context and arguing... it's like you're basically arguing with yourself.

Do I believe that we can only know 'reality' based on our perceptions of it? Yes. Do you? I don't know or care it has nothing to contribute to this conversation.

 

[DaveC426913]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality.

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream.

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

 

[Buckethead]

I'm sure there's more to his claim than what you've quoted. I hope there is, because this:

is just silly logic.

I had an in depth conversation awhile back with a fellow lucid dreamer/obeer about this very topic. My initial stand was that lucid dreams/obes can and are considered to be full states of consciousness while the event was occurring, but that common dreams in my opinion may not occur consciously until after one wakes up from sleep at which time the subject is then free to put a consciouness to what was otherwise just non-conscious electrical activity in the brain. She won the debate when she reminded me that if a person is awakened in the middle of a dream, is the dream not interrupted at that very point. So I would have to vote on this one that indeed a person must be not fully conscious, but conscious nontheless. Of course it does depend on the definition of consciousness. If being in a passive state of listening and watching without any self awareness is not considered consciousness, then the common dreamer would of course not have any consciousness.

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

You're missing the point of the technique. The rational mind will observe and conclude that certain cause and effect assumptions do not hold true. That is still a perfectly valid observation. Granted, the rational mind might not get very far in learning the rules about his world, but that isn't a flaw in the technique.

 

[Evo]

I find the "lucid dreaming" thing I see gathering popularity on the internet rather funny.

Since I was a child, I had the ability to stop, rewind, and change whatever I was dreaming. I called it "directed dreaming" when I described it to people, because I was like a movie director. Of course, this as after I realized other people did not have the ability to control their dreams. I can also create dreams by starting the dream before I fall asleep. If I awake from a dream, I can decide if I want to continue the dream when I go back to sleep. In other words, I'd say that I am aware and in control perpaps 98% of the time. That doesn't mean that I think that I am able to go other places *in reality* in a dream. No.

 

[Buckethead]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

Interesting point, but not quite true. I had a lucid dream where I tried to take advantage of someone (which normally is pretty easy) and was met with disapproval from this person. I was surprised by the disapproval (this had never happened up to this point) and was compelled to back off out of courtesy and for moral reasons. Go figure!

 

[Buckethead]

I find the "lucid dreaming" thing I see gathering popularity on the internet rather funny.

Since I was a child, I had the ability to stop, rewind, and change whatever I was dreaming. I called it "directed dreaming" when I described it to people, because I was like a movie director. Of course, this as after I realized other people did not have the ability to control their dreams. I can also create dreams by starting the dream before I fall asleep. If I awake from a dream, I can decide if I want to continue the dream when I go back to sleep. In other words, I'd say that I am aware and in control perpaps 98% of the time. That doesn't mean that I think that I am able to go other places *in reality* in a dream. No.

I had belonged to a newsgroup called alt.out-of-body about 10 years ago which was at the time an incredibly active community of people that experienced both lucid dreams and out of body experiences. It was at that time that I realized how many people experienced this phenomenon. I had always felt special about it, having experience this for over 35 years, but now realize that it is much more common. Still one has to be very careful when talking to people in person as there are still vastly more folks who think it's pure lunacy. It is, as you say, becoming more and more popular as the forums about it continue to pop up and I suppose it's similar to any minority simply coming out of the closet as the fears and phobias around it start to disapate.

Like you, I also have the ability to wake, then go back to the same place I was. Gotta see what happens next after all. Also DaveC just mentioned that he has the ability to be in a state of not remembering his current thoughts over and over and I can do that too. I can also project my sense of sight to a remote non-real location while knowing my current location simultaneously. In addition I am able to comprehend something truly incomprehensible at certain times but the comprehension of course soon vanishes to be lost for good (these are my moments of "pure insight"). There is quite a bit about the "dream" world that is really making itself into popular discussions and I think it's just great.

 

[magpies]

About a page back I saw people talking about responsiblitys we have in dreams and such... I would say the type of person you are will play out in the dream. If you are a person who is likely to shoot someone attacking you I would guess you would probably do the same in a dream.

Also talking about rewinding dreams is interesting or being able to control the dream your going to have. I personaly don't think I would even wants to be able to do that... So perhaps that is part of the reason why I haven't yet?

 

[DaveC426913]

I had belonged to a newsgroup called alt.out-of-body about 10 years ago which was at the time an incredibly active community of people that experienced both lucid dreams and out of body experiences. It was at that time that I realized how many people experienced this phenomenon. I had always felt special about it, having experience this for over 35 years, but now realize that it is much more common. Still one has to be very careful when talking to people in person as there are still vastly more folks who think it's pure lunacy. It is, as you say, becoming more and more popular as the forums about it continue to pop up and I suppose it's similar to any minority simply coming out of the closet as the fears and phobias around it start to disapate.

Wait a minute. Out-of-body experience is a different block of cheese.

All the other phenomena we've mentioned are entirely internal to the person. They're simply things happening in the brain. Out-of-body experiences (that are claimed to be genuine) are studyable - and falsifiable.

And yeah, people will have a big objection to this one. There is no known mechanism that allows one's perception to leave one's body. That one needs to be demionstrated satisfactorily before you'll get any buy-in.

I can also project my sense of sight to a remote non-real location while knowing my current location simultaneously.

I don't understand this one. I am currently projecting my sense of sight to Jupiter. Are you suggesting you have some form of genuine clairvoyance?

In addition I am able to comprehend something truly incomprehensible at certain times but the comprehension of course soon vanishes to be lost for good (these are my moments of "pure insight").

Others call these moments of "being stoned".

All seriounsess aside. One of the problems with the brain is that it possible to have the brain think something is truly profound, but that doesn't mean it really is. The feeling of profundity can be switched on independent of the presence of anything actually happening. It is a portion of the brain that actually assigns a feeling of importance to events. (This is often cited as the source of profound zeal seen in accounts such as divine visitation and UFO encounters.)

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Yeah, that guy who first proved lucid dreaming has written extensively on NDE and OBE. He says they are totally explained by biology and not supernatural at all. Some kind of sensory cutoff is happening.

I can't totally rule them out though I guess..

Anyway, here is some more interesting comments by him:

RMN: There seems to be a correlation between psychedelic consciousness and lucid consciousness in the dream state.

Stephen: There’s a lot in common between the two states. In fact people can in the dream state, take a dream "psychedelic" and have it produce an effect.

DJB: Terence McKenna says that he smokes DMT in his dreams and then has the full experience.

Stephen: And what that shows is that what prevents us from having these experiences is not the chemical, it’s the mental framework. So in a way psychedelics can be a kind of guide in revealing some of the potential in the mind. I think they have limitations in terms of taking us to the visions they show us. One can take the mistaken path of saying, well since I had the taste of it with the substance, if I keep taking it I’ll eventually get the whole thing because more of the same should help. It doesn’t seem to work that way.

Good interview really:

http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Laberge_WakingDreamer.html

 

[Buckethead]

Wait a minute. Out-of-body experience is a different block of cheese.

All the other phenomena we've mentioned are entirely internal to the person. They're simply things happening in the brain. Out-of-body experiences (that are claimed to be genuine) are studyable - and falsifiable.

And yeah, people will have a big objection to this one. There is no known mechanism that allows one's perception to leave one's body. That one needs to be demionstrated satisfactorily before you'll get any buy-in.

OBE and Lucid dreaming are considered by many practitioners to be one in the same while others consider them as you say. Other's still are on the fence. It's a massive topic of debate in the OBE/Lucid circles. Here is the problem (from my personal experience). OBE's are loaded with hallucinations. You can slip out in your bedroom notice the usual stuff around your bedroom but discover your bedroom dresser is against the wrong wall. Step out the bedroom door into the hallway and find yourself in someone else's living room. Too much is the same to dismiss it as a dream, yet the differences between what you see and what you know to be reality differ. The consistancy here is very high. Exiting during an OBE from a waking state causes this kind of thing to happen over and over. Other consistant things happen during OBEs as well that don't happen during lucid dreams.

I don't understand this one. I am currently projecting my sense of sight to Jupiter. Are you suggesting you have some form of genuine clairvoyance?

Others call these moments of "being stoned".

I was differentiating between an OBE where all of me goes somewhere to just having my sense of sight (and sound) be able to travel as if it were a remote camera connected to me in my home. I know I am in bed, yet can see clearly someplace else.

I was careful to state that I could project my sight to a non-physical place. I've never been able to do this to a place I could verify so I can't say I have genuine clarvoyance.

All seriounsess aside. One of the problems with the brain is that it possible to have the brain think something is truly profound, but that doesn't mean it really is. The feeling of profundity can be switched on independent of the presence of anything actually happening. It is a portion of the brain that actually assigns a feeling of importance to events. (This is often cited as the source of profound zeal seen in accounts such as divine visitation and UFO encounters.)

I don't dispute these discoveries. Also probing certain areas of the brain can cause spontaneous OBEs. However, the extreme nature of human consciousness with respect to what we know of through physics about reality leaves me to think of these observations as just another piece of the puzzle but certainly not highly illuminating. The experiences I've had of momentary extreme clarity and knowledge was accompanied by full analytical processing of what I was experiencing to the degree that I could teach it to someone at that moment in English sentences. Alas, the clarity so quickly disappears and with it a real sense of loss. Still I do not dismiss that it can be a brain trick, but I think it's unlikely.

 

[Buckethead]

Yeah, that guy who first proved lucid dreaming has written extensively on NDE and OBE. He says they are totally explained by biology and not supernatural at all. Some kind of sensory cutoff is happening.

I can't totally rule them out though I guess..

I am familiar with Leberge's work and we've had some email discussions. Although I can appreciate his work on Lucid Dreaming, I (and many others) don't agree with his assessment that OBEs are just lucid dreams and I have clearly expressed my opinions to him about this. Still, we all just have our opinions.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I am familiar with Leberge's work and we've had some email discussions. Although I can appreciate his work on Lucid Dreaming, I (and many others) don't agree with his assessment that OBEs are just lucid dreams and I have clearly expressed my opinions to him about this. Still, we all just have our opinions.

That's pretty cool that you have communicated with him about this.

 

[Buckethead]

That's pretty cool that you have communicated with him about this.

I think it's cool communicating with people in this forum.

 

[DaveC426913]

OBE and Lucid dreaming are considered by many practitioners to be one in the same while others consider them as you say. Other's still are on the fence. It's a massive topic of debate in the OBE/Lucid circles.

I guess I'm behind the times.

Where I come from lucid dreaming simply means the ability to be conscious and aware and in control while dreaming.

Here is the problem (from my personal experience). OBE's are loaded with hallucinations. You can slip out in your bedroom notice the usual stuff around your bedroom but discover your bedroom dresser is against the wrong wall. Step out the bedroom door into the hallway and find yourself in someone else's living room. Too much is the same to dismiss it as a dream, yet the differences between what you see and what you know to be reality differ. The consistancy here is very high. Exiting during an OBE from a waking state causes this kind of thing to happen over and over. Other consistant things happen during OBEs as well that don't happen during lucid dreams.

OBE must be pretty easy to verify or falsify. The ol' write number on a piece of paper and place it on top of a tall bookcase is a common test. I've never heard of it being verified.

I was differentiating between an OBE where all of me goes somewhere to just having my sense of sight (and sound) be able to travel as if it were a remote camera connected to me in my home. I know I am in bed, yet can see clearly someplace else.

But what about this makes it any more than a type of dream? Dreaming that your sense of sight is somewhere remote is simply a "dream" thing, somewhat akin to dreaming that you're flying. What leads you to believe there is more to it?

 

[Buckethead]

I guess I'm behind the times.

Where I come from lucid dreaming simply means the ability to be conscious and aware and in control while dreaming.

And you would be correct, that is the definition of a lucid dream.

OBE must be pretty easy to verify or falsify. The ol' write number on a piece of paper and place it on top of a tall bookcase is a common test. I've never heard of it being verified.

I've heard of it being verified, but what can one really say about that? I've tried this experiment myself and have failed which doesn't surprise me. It's not an easy experiment to perform. One might have to wait weeks for an OBE and when the time comes you might find the paper isn't where you put it, or you read it and you can't read it, or you can read it and not remember the number when you return (no matter how much you repeat it in your head so you can remember it) or you can remember it and it's the wrong number. What does this say? Well scientifically the standard model would be that it's just a dream and in some sense that would be correct. But this is a very primitive standard model IMO.

The reason I think it's important to move beyond the standard model is because of the conflict between what we usually think of as a dream and what one experiences during an OBE (or even lucid dream). Is a dream just "something we do at night" or does it go beyond that? One of the key points when defining reality is the uncanny sense that we are really here doing whatever it is we are doing. We are experiencing reality as fully conscious awake entities. If someone asks, "Is this real?" and we are awake, we can answer yes, because we can think and feel and react and experience with all that we are. If one is "dreaming" but experiencing exactly the same thing, then what do you call that? One difference between waking and conscious dreaming might be that we return to waking consistantly, but I have returned to the same place during an OBE as well, just not to the same degree. And as Dyson mentioned earlier, the laws of physics can be really twisted in the dreamscape which can add to the confusion about what is real and what is not. Is reality a place where there are certain laws of physics, Newtonian laws for example, and if these laws don't exist, are we allowed to call this a non-reality? I'll say that waking reality is "more" real than an OBE reality for the reasons I just gave, but I'd be really careful about calling an OBE "just a dream". And why is this important? I think that investigating this further might lead to some insight about some of the stuff that goes on behind the curtain of what we think of as reality. What about non-locality? Is this phenomenon somehow tied in with OBE or lucid dreams? It's easy to dismiss, but we are at such a brick wall in this area I wouldn't dismiss anything.

But what about this makes it any more than a type of dream? Dreaming that your sense of sight is somewhere remote is simply a "dream" thing, somewhat akin to dreaming that you're flying. What leads you to believe there is more to it?

I actually didn't say it was different than a type of dream, I just said it's different than an OBE. But to take your question further the devil is in the details. Whenever I have standard dreams, they involve the totallity of me being in the dream. A remote viewing is where you are fully aware you are laying in bed, but you can clearly see and hear a remote location and move the "camera" around at will to examine details as if looking at a real object. Also the remote location seems "stable" unlike let's say the unstable images of a typical mental image.

 

[DaveC426913]

A remote viewing is where you are fully aware you are laying in bed, but you can clearly see and hear a remote location and move the "camera" around at will to examine details as if looking at a real object. Also the remote location seems "stable" unlike let's say the unstable images of a typical mental image.

Ah. Never had one of those.

 

[Sorry!]

Why exactly has the conversation shifted to OBEs? Bucket if you think that you are having OBEs you should probably check yourself into a hospital...

It is something that is falsifiable and it has been multiple times... I have never heard of it being 'proven' by any sort of credible source beyond crackpottery.

 

[Buckethead]

Why exactly has the conversation shifted to OBEs? Bucket if you think that you are having OBEs you should probably check yourself into a hospital...

It is something that is falsifiable and it has been multiple times... I have never heard of it being 'proven' by any sort of credible source beyond crackpottery.

Alas, my comments about fears and phobias stand.

 

[DaveC426913]

Alas, my comments about fears and phobias stand.

How do you equate skepticism with fear and phobia? Skepticism is rational.

Is there any verification of OBE?

 

[Buckethead]

How do you equate skepticism with fear and phobia? Skepticism is rational.

Is there any verification of OBE?

I was equating rude comments about hospital visits with fears and phobias.

Is there any verification of Strings? Branes? Multiple dimensions? Advanced alien life? Should one abandon explorations of these areas because there is none? Should one check oneself into a hospital because one is studying String Theory?

 

[Sorry!]

I was equating rude comments about hospital visits with fears and phobias.

Is there any verification of Strings? Branes? Multiple dimensions? Advanced alien life? Should one abandon explorations of these areas because there is none? Should one check oneself into a hospital because one is studying String Theory?

These things are all falsifiable and when the evidence suggests they are not true PEACE OUT. Observation supports all theories you spoke of in one way or another. So why should we abandon these areas?

OBE on the other hand has been many times tested. Post some links to a credible sourced peer review references and maybe I won't be so rude to you.

 

[DaveC426913]

I was equating rude comments about hospital visits with fears and phobias.

Is there any verification of Strings? Branes? Multiple dimensions? Advanced alien life? Should one abandon explorations of these areas because there is none? Should one check oneself into a hospital because one is studying String Theory?

Hm. This may not be the best forum for you after all. Of all the fora there are out there on the web, this one is probably the most diligent about adhering to established science.

Not only will you get a lot of skeptics demanding citation of reliable evidence, but it is very likely that the thread will get locked for violating its rules about speculation, thus:

One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Personal theories/Independent Research may be submitted to our Independent Research Forum, provided they meet our Independent Research Guidelines; Personal theories posted elsewhere will be deleted. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

 

[DanP]

Any of you can shift into a wolf ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Any of you can shift into a wolf ?

Stop that!