The Science Behind Dream Construction and Psychic Abilities

[Vast]

Most of you would have had the experience of setting an alarm clock to wake you early one morning, only to find that you could really do with some more rest, and your mind doesn’t want to wake. Then of course what happens when the alarm starts to sound is that instead of waking you, your mind incorporates and mixes the sound of the alarm into whatever dream scenario you were currently having…

Now the fact that we actually do this should point out some fairly interesting processes that take place in order to construct a dream. But first we can see that any outside stimulus that attempts to wake your brain trying to rest, can easily be ignored so that resting can continue. (To a certain extent of course)

So in the example above where an outside stimulus is interfering with your normal sleep cycle, your mind creates a dream with the properties of the outside stimulus so that it doesn’t have to wake and deal with it consciously.

A dream is therefore a mental construction, if it has meaning isn’t really the topic here, only what factors and processes influence the dream scenario.

Doesn’t this then go on to prove that you manufacture the dream scenario alone? How you would actively perceive something through astral projection, remote viewing or predicting future events would essentially be out of the question. Anything you experience inside your mind is just a construction of your imagination. Even if you take astral projection to mean perceiving the outside environment around you, it would essentially still be manufactured by your mind, not an actual direct representation of the real physical world you experience when light hits your eye for example.

Remote viewing literally means being able to “see” a foreign location, as is out of body experiences except that you are floating outside your body, and experiments have been done to test whether the patients were able to actively see anything in the physical world in their OOBE’s, nothing has ever been confirmed. Foretelling future events are another means of “seeing” foreign locations, only this time into the future.

The point I’m trying to make with all these different psychic abilities, is that they’re all in some way trying to subconsciously make educated guesses, not actually literally “see” foreign locations, future events or anything else. You may after all believe you’ve witnessed “something” but isn’t this merely the way you’ve interpreted it?

Any thoughts or constructive criticisms?

 

[yesicanread]

Let's say that viewing is geometrically equivalent to point symmetry viewing the perimeter.

To this point in history. People haven't defined Points, lines or planes. This is the basis for geometry/Intersection, which defines complex/simple math.

So. You see the perimeter of your room right now ? The points, lines, and planes to define your room haven't been defined themselves yet !

So to say a person proves geometry to see a certain perimeter is incorrect. They are aware of what undefined geometry relates to them.

Remote viewing to see a perimeter is seeing a perimeter that undefined geometry defines for the viewing person. Your doing that right now.

:rofl:

 

[Vast]

Let's say that viewing is geometrically equivalent to point symmetry viewing the perimeter.

To this point in history. People haven't defined Points, lines or planes. This is the basis for geometry/Intersection, which defines complex/simple math.

So. You see the perimeter of your room right now ? The points, lines, and planes to define your room haven't been defined themselves yet !

So to say a person proves geometry to see a certain perimeter is incorrect. They are aware of what undefined geometry relates to them.

Remote viewing to see a perimeter is seeing a perimeter that undefined geometry defines for the viewing person. Your doing that right now.

:rofl:

I don't think you've made yourself very clear.

I'm aware of the perimeter of my room or local environment, that's obvious isn't it? How can I be percieve a foreign location without making educated guesses? That's the whole point of remote viewing isn't it? to literally see a foriegn location without just guessing what that location would look like.

So no, I'm not doing that right now.

 

[yesicanread]

1.) The point I'm trying to make is tat geometry, also called intersection, is composed of three things: Points, lines, and planes. Nobody has defined these three points. Their imaginary.

2.) The geometry to remote view is made up of points, lines, and planes that are undefined.

3.) The geometry to see the room your in is made up of points, lines, and planes that are undefined.

4.) Seeing the room your in is equivalent to remote viewing, geometrically.

Where is the guessing ?

 

[Vast]

3.) The geometry to see the room your in is made up of points, lines, and planes that are undefined.

The third point is probably something we can both agree with. The geometry in your local environment is not something you have defined, in other words if you take away the observer the geometry still remains.

Therefore to see the geometry we need to observe the local environment.

2.) The geometry to remote view is made up of points, lines, and planes that are undefined.

Once again, remote viewing is the ability to view a foreign location (geometry) without observation.
Which you’re confusing in your next point, by stated that observing ones local environment is remote viewing.

4.) Seeing the room your in is equivalent to remote viewing, geometrically.

 

[yesicanread]

(A) The geometry to remote view is undefined.
(B) The geometry to see your room is undefined.

A = B

Therefore when you see the geometry of your room, your acting as if your remote viewing. Your seeing the same geometry, geometry that is undefined.
Points, lines, and planes, that are undefined.

If they are defined then perfect symmetry does not exist, and there is a limit to the Universe. And A does not = B. Geometry in point A doesn't equal geometry in point B.

Here's a short history for reference to my jibber jabber.

Planck's constant, h, has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the units of action.

Since energy is conserved, Action = Reaction

[1.] Nothingness is a difficult concept, or rather a difficult "non-concept" since it is nothing.

[2.] To say that nothingness exists is to create a contradiction, since nothingness is non-existence. Nothingness "non-exists".

[3.] Nothingness is non-existence; therefore nothingness is non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself, hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.

[4.] Being-ness means basically "to be", and to exist. Being-ness exists.

[5.] Take two distinct quantities:

A<------P------>B

A and B percieve each other to be different with perception P. That is to say A ,is perceived to be different from B and B is perceived to be different from A.

A and B are different elements of a larger picture, but they also[must] share certain common attributes of the larger reality including them. From that perspective A and B are the same, because aspects of A transorm into B and aspects of B transform into A. At a higher level of generality and symmetry, A cannot be distinguished from B, and B cannot be distinguished from A. For example, dogs and cats are distinctively different, yet dogs and cats are the same from the perspective that both are "mammals".

[6.] Following this premise, it stands to reason that all attributes & aspects of reality can be transformed into each other, and hence they have no distinctions from each other[at continually higher and higher levels of symmetry].

[7.] Therefore, it follows, that at a top[infinite?] level of symmetry, everything is nothing.

QED.


Some clarification...



A thing exists if it can be distinguished from another thing. A thing does not exist if it cannot be recognized [distinguished from what it is not] to exist.

At a top level of symmetry, no distinctions exist. Everything transforms into everything else.


Nothingness can only be logically inferred, it cannot be recognized.



One can logically define nothingness to be the end of a series of removing distinctive attributes from existence. The infinite limit of this series is the total removal of every possible distinction. Ergo, pure nothingness is total non-existence.

Quasi-nothingness is an abstract-mental concept that stands in contrast to an actual existing entity or mental concept.

True nothingness "non-exists".

Here's my reply.

Well let's see.

Remove distinction by applying nothing/symmetry. But true symmetry does not exist.

Does this sum up your post ?

Here's my revised version of my Geometry that I posted in this thread. I'm sorry it took a few tries to get to this version. Please read the Geometric theory.

1.) I began looking at the plane as if two opposite vertex's had two equal joining points on a plane axis. I considered that if I converted the two points used on the plane I could make a simplex, the axis/plane has three planar points right, and since the plane has three points I could make three sides to the simplex.

Reason: Which is possible since three points define a plane and the scenario would allow be use of geometry or conversion.

If the simplex vertex's are joined on the plane and by a perpendicular altitude between them. It may in fact resemble a sphere. Also If I convert back to using just two points on the axis plane and the vertex's. The degrees used in both triangles equal 360 degree. A circular type shape, a circumference. This 360 degrees may use different points from the plane, and still equal 360 degrees. So all sides of the simplex may be seen as circular. And thus the entire simplex has circular sides that meet equal points on the plane, and are equal. A sphere.

So the simplex or two point vertex has a circular/spherical equivilenence, and may be call AB.

2.) What if when two points on the plane are used I made point symmetry, and the one vertex starts the perpendicular action to the opposite equal vertex. Newton's equal and opposite reaction says this action has a equal and opposite reaction, the plane, as well as the reaction caused by reaching the opposite vertex.

If altitude is action from the vertex, it can't be infinite hight.
But the variation on the plane is inmeasureable one would suppose.(This is disorder I think.)

3.) Because action reconverts to action. The reaction is equal and opposite the action. And so when we create a circular/spherical/planar/geometric movement. That action has been converted back to action/reaction. and passed through reaction to convert to reaction.

4.) And so my description is complete intersection/geometry.Points, Planes, and lines.
and a description of Newton, however general, Which guided Einstein, and guides today's physicists.

Point # 2.) seems to state that perfect symmetry or nothingness does not exist. Since infinite height does not exist. Hence infinite height of symmetry does not exist, and so equal and opposite reaction does exist, and so time does exist.

So then. If the Geometry of your room or wherever you are is defined. Then symmetry can't exist, not perfectly, it's reasoned.

See. There's a difference between remote viewing and directly seeing. So that difference states perfect symmetry isn't present, and time is.

So my theory would seem to be verified by you. In part because you don't know it.

Planck's constant, h, has units of energy multiplied by time, which are the units of action.

Since energy is conserved, Action = Reaction, so your inequality becomes:

Action < 2*Action

A true statement

Geometry < 2*Geometry

 

[yesicanread]

Or. It takes time to remote view. It takes time to see your room. Time changes from action to reaction to reaction.

So to see the second reaction or remote viewing takes twice the time it takes you to see your room.

So they are different. Your right. :shy: