Lucid Dreaming

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I've never heard of him. Obviously he didn't do what he claims to do.

you've never heard of his hospital or his works? are you kidding? do you live in a box? you can find a lot of websites but they add a lot of hype. the history channel runs a good special about his life that doesn't go overboard. it's a straight biography with only the facts.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

you've never heard of his hospital or his works? are you kidding? do you live in a box? you can find a lot of websites but they add a lot of hype. the history channel runs a good special about his life that doesn't go overboard. it's a straight biography with only the facts.

I looked him up.

Michael Shermer writes in Why People Believe Weird Things, "Uneducated beyond the ninth grade, Cayce acquired his broad knowledge through voracious reading and from this he wove elaborate tales."[1] Furthermore, "Cayce was fantasy-prone from his youth, often talking with angels and receiving visions of his dead grandfather."[2] Shermer further cites James Randi as noting "Cayce was fond of expressions like 'I feel that' and 'perhaps' -- qualifying words used to avoid positive declarations."[3] Shermer also explains that methods used at the institution operated by Cayce's followers shows their ESP experiments have no statistical difference from chance.[4]

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I looked him up.

Michael Shermer writes in Why People Believe Weird Things, "Uneducated beyond the ninth grade, Cayce acquired his broad knowledge through voracious reading and from this he wove elaborate tales."[1] Furthermore, "Cayce was fantasy-prone from his youth, often talking with angels and receiving visions of his dead grandfather."[2] Shermer further cites James Randi as noting "Cayce was fond of expressions like 'I feel that' and 'perhaps' -- qualifying words used to avoid positive declarations."[3] Shermer also explains that methods used at the institution operated by Cayce's followers shows their ESP experiments have no statistical difference from chance.[4]

i gave you an unbiased source for information. shermer doesn't explain away the people cured nor his ability to instruct surgeons how to perform surgeries unknown at the time. without any medical training. all these are documented and available to the public. cayce didn't read books; he put them under his pillow and slept on them. until someone can discount the stenographed evidence; it remains unexplained.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

i gave you an unbiased source for information. shermer doesn't explain away the people cured nor his ability to instruct surgeons how to perform surgeries unknown at the time. without any medical training. all these are documented and available to the public. cayce didn't read books; he put them under his pillow and slept on them. until someone can discount the stenographed evidence; it remains unexplained.

That's all anecdotal evidence.

Why are you so eager to may assumptions about it?

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, it was a religious/spiritual experience thread, so I guess I incorrectly made that inferrence that the content was pertaining to the topic.

Like threads never drift off the topic around here... And not only here, next time you chat with a friend over a cup of coffee just stop and try to retrace the way the talk has gone.

Besides, since many spiritual experiences are akin to altered states of consciousness, it isn't that much of a leap to start talking about dreaming.

But I dont think anyone was really saying it was a spiritual experience per se.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

That's all anecdotal evidence.

Why are you so eager to may assumptions about it?

Why are you so eager to dismiss it?

Peace
Dan

catefrances

what's a lucid dream?

OutOfBreath

catefrances wrote:

what's a lucid dream?

Put shortly, a dream where you know you are dreaming, and with some practice being able to control your dreams.

Peace
Dan

catefrances

OutOfBreath wrote:

Put shortly, a dream where you know you are dreaming, and with some practice being able to control your dreams.

Peace
Dan

thanks dan.

there have been occasions where i've lost a dream and been able to get it back by changing my sleeping position until it came back into transmission so to speak.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Why are you so eager to dismiss it?

Peace
Dan

I'm not but in the absence of true knowledge, I prefer to have no knowledge at all.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not but in the absence of true knowledge, I prefer to have no knowledge at all.

But if we are going to be able to find "true knowledge", we have to theorize, day-dream and be creative to find possible solutions/connections/theories which we can confirm/test/dismiss later. Speculation is the driving force of science. Without it, we wouldn't go anywhere.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

But if we are going to be able to find "true knowledge", we have to theorize, day-dream and be creative to find possible solutions/connections/theories which we can confirm/test/dismiss later. Speculation is the driving force of science. Without it, we wouldn't go anywhere.

Peace
Dan

Right, but we don't need to have convictions about the unknown.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Right, but we don't need to have convictions about the unknown.

Maybe, maybe not. History has shown that conviction has been necessary to even get theories to the test. Thus convictions about the unknown may also be necessary, or rather that someone has a conviction of it's correctness. We may of course ignore other people's convictions though.

Peace
Dan

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not but in the absence of true knowledge, I prefer to have no knowledge at all.

Ha ha. Be careful what you wish for........ Ahnimus, you will find as you continue to 'dig deeper' that the application of human reason in its most refined and formalized sense, ie mathematics, is full of paradox and uncertainty. Are you familiar with Godel's theorem? It warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from a given assumptions can't provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be knowledge or truth that can't be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical system that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation for everything is doomed to fail. SUch a thing might exist abstractly, but I really doubt that we can know its whole form on the basis of rational thought alone. I'm reminded of the 'turtle' story you shared in one of your other threads (Stephen Hawkings tells this same story n his book ,"A Brief History of Time"). I think as long as you insist on explaining knowledge with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar with science, you will always end up with 'turtle trouble'. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. I do, however, feel there are other forms of understanding which can satisfy the inquiring mind.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

Ha ha. Be careful what you wish for........ Ahnimus, you will find as you continue to 'dig deeper' that the application of human reason in its most refined and formalized sense, ie mathematics, is full of paradox and uncertainty. Are you familiar with Godel's theorem? It warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from a given assumptions can't provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. There will always be knowledge or truth that can't be reached from a finite collection of axioms. The search for a closed logical system that provides a complete and self-consistent explanation for everything is doomed to fail. SUch a thing might exist abstractly, but I really doubt that we can know its whole form on the basis of rational thought alone. I'm reminded of the 'turtle' story you shared in one of your other threads (Stephen Hawkings tells this same story n his book ,"A Brief History of Time"). I think as long as you insist on explaining knowledge with "rational explanation" of the sort familiar with science, you will always end up with 'turtle trouble'. There will always be mystery at the end of the universe. I do, however, feel there are other forms of understanding which can satisfy the inquiring mind.

I am aware of Gödel's theorom. By certain or true, I'm referring to that which is true within the limits of critical analysis. I don't see Gödel's theorom as being especially applicable to life as we experience it.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I am aware of Gödel's theorom. By certain or true, I'm referring to that which is true within the limits of critical analysis. I don't see Gödel's theorom as being especially applicable to life as we experience it.

Why not? To say that is to say 'I don't know how any of these examples concerning mind & brain science or physics is applicable to life as we experience it'. You do realize that all of the examples you provide that pertain to physics would be meaningless without the mathematics backing it? Of course it's applicable. You can't 'keep' the science you like and throw out what does not fit into your personal view of reality.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

Why not? To say that is to say 'I don't know how any of these examples concerning mind & brain science or physics is applicable to life as we experience it'. You do realize that all of the examples you provide that pertain to physics would be meaningless without the mathematics backing it? Of course it's applicable. You can't 'keep' the science you like and throw out what does not fit into your personal view of reality.

Gödel's theory gives you the ability to throw out science you don't like and play the Gödel card. But ultimately it takes nothing away from the validity of the science, it's just gives the non-believer and escape route.

If I say Pi is 3.14~ and it is, what stops you from playing Gödel's card and saying I can't possibly know that for certain? Then what does that do for Pi, is Pi still 3.14~ even though Gödel says this is fundamentally flawed? Or is Gödel's theory really applicable?

I understand the weight of Gödel's theory, but I've seen people here, and this recent example, attributing a lot more weight to it than is reasonably attributable.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

Gödel's theory gives you the ability to throw out science you don't like and play the Gödel card. But ultimately it takes nothing away from the validity of the science, it's just gives the non-believer and escape route.

If I say Pi is 3.14~ and it is, what stops you from playing Gödel's card and saying I can't possibly know that for certain? Then what does that do for Pi, is Pi still 3.14~ even though Gödel says this is fundamentally flawed? Or is Gödel's theory really applicable?

I understand the weight of Gödel's theory, but I've seen people here, and this recent example, attributing a lot more weight to it than is reasonably attributable.

Godel's theorem is a powerful card, an ace if you will, and it's implications are far reaching and has been noted as such by physicists and mathematicians. Personally, when I first learned about this theorem I thought that it was quite absurd. It's basically saying that no rational system can be proved both consistent and complete. There will aways remain some openness, some mystery, something unexplained. In your quest for 'knowledge' and answers, you will find that another question always present itself. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know.


BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?

angelica

baraka wrote:

BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

Godel's theorem is a powerful card, an ace if you will, and it's implications are far reaching and has been noted as such by physicists and mathematicians. Personally, when I first learned about this theorem I thought that it was quite absurd. It's basically saying that no rational system can be proved both consistent and complete. There will aways remain some openness, some mystery, something unexplained. In your quest for 'knowledge' and answers, you will find that another question always present itself. The more you learn, the more you realize how little you really know.


BTW, who, other than myself, has played that card here?

But again, we don't see that being as broadly applied as you've tried to do here. We haven't seen the complete collapse of understanding and our current understandings for the large part hold true. I don't see it as an effective tool for understanding. Pi still works as Pi and has many mathmatical applications that hold true. So I don't see Gödel's theory affecting Pi. ☺