I died and crossed over in my dream

Tell us about your first lucid dream - and your latest. We want all the juicy details. Also share results of dream challenge experiments.
Intrepid
Posts: 84
Joined: 29 Jun 2011 13:43
Location: Bradenton, FL USA

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Intrepid » 10 May 2013 13:02

Mia,
Fortunately, despite that scientist's concerns, real science and the nature of a devoted scientist will work towards discovering new information, regardless of preconceived notions or biases. The ambiguity of our reality doesn't necessarily require that the ambiguity is disguising some absolute 180 degree difference in what we know. Any scientist who fits the description of the stubborn know-it-all is doing themselves a disfavor by stopping their pursuit of knowledge. However, it should go without saying that any good scientist isn't going to waste their time or advocate for a new and profound "theory" that is really just an idea cooked up by a crackpot that wrote a book about it.
M theory is a slippery slope, as it isn't even a theory. It's not testable. Not yet, at least.
I would strongly recommended watching Dan Denett's wonderful presentation called "The Magic of Consciouness"...it seems right up your alley. :)
It falls right in line with what Summerlander has been saying in several threads about how consciousness works.
Hope this added something meaningful!

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Summerlander » 10 May 2013 15:27

I couldn't have said it better, Intrepid. I wholeheartedly agree. Dan Dennett is a great philosopher and cognitive scientist. I love listening to him. I admire his stance against the notion of the hard problem of consciousness.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
mia
Posts: 305
Joined: 03 Apr 2013 02:35
Location: CANADA

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby mia » 10 May 2013 16:13

Intrepid wrote:Fortunately, despite that scientist's concerns, real science and the nature of a devoted scientist will work towards discovering new information, regardless of preconceived notions or biases.

I`m sorry Intrepid, I don`t quite understand. Is your response here that there are, in fact, no problems in the field of scientific research or with 'real scientists'? Who do you think the 'real scientists' are? Where do you think they are? I don't understand your use of the words 'real science' as you are using them. This article is written by a director of research for cell biology about problems in research science ( ie: real science).

Here is his point in a nutshell:
"But I am more and more convinced that that the spirit of free inquiry is being repressed within the scientific community by fear-based conformity. "

All 'real science' happens in universities ( 'research' you know); this scientist is a director of cell biology at Clare College Cambridge. Clearly, he is not addressing concerns regarding "crackpots' who write books"; or "preconceived notions or biases" of the great unwashed public. He is addressing concerns in his own field.

He is talking about problems in the field of research in Science ( that means in universities) that limits uninhibited research (in other words 'real science'). His points are valid.

I don't quite understand your response ( as no 'view' or 'theory' was forwarded in this article, other than 'science doesn't have all the answers' ; surely you are not disagreeing with that ). The article does not suggest that "The ambiguity of our reality is disguising some absolute 180 degree difference in what we know". The article was not debating your views or beliefs, or putting forward a view or belief.

No doubt your suggested reading on consciousness is interesting though. I will check it out.

The point of posting this article was that "Good science, like good religion, is a journey of discovery, a quest. It builds on traditions from the past. But it is most effective when it recognizes how much we do not know, when it is not arrogant but humble."

Now I need a drink. ;)
The key to creativity is to remove the watchers from the gates, and realize how free you really are.

Intrepid
Posts: 84
Joined: 29 Jun 2011 13:43
Location: Bradenton, FL USA

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Intrepid » 10 May 2013 17:05

mia wrote:
Intrepid wrote:Fortunately, despite that scientist's concerns, real science and the nature of a devoted scientist will work towards discovering new information, regardless of preconceived notions or biases.

I`m sorry Intrepid, I don`t quite understand. Is your response here that there are, in fact, no problems in the field of scientific research or with 'real scientists'? Who do you think the 'real scientists' are? Where do you think they are? I don't understand your use of the words 'real science' as you are using them. This article is written by a director of research for cell biology about problems in research science ( ie: real science).

Here is his point in a nutshell:
"But I am more and more convinced that that the spirit of free inquiry is being repressed within the scientific community by fear-based conformity. "

All 'real science' happens in universities ( 'research' you know); this scientist is a director of cell biology at Clare College Cambridge. Clearly, he is not addressing concerns regarding "crackpots' who write books"; or "preconceived notions or biases" of the great unwashed public. He is addressing concerns in his own field.

He is talking about problems in the field of research in Science ( that means in universities) that limits uninhibited research (in other words 'real science'). His points are valid.

I don't quite understand your response ( as no 'view' or 'theory' was forwarded in this article, other than 'science doesn't have all the answers' ; surely you are not disagreeing with that ). The article does not suggest that "The ambiguity of our reality is disguising some absolute 180 degree difference in what we know". The article was not debating your views or beliefs, or putting forward a view or belief.

No doubt your suggested reading on consciousness is interesting though. I will check it out.

The point of posting this article was that "Good science, like good religion, is a journey of discovery, a quest. It builds on traditions from the past. But it is most effective when it recognizes how much we do not know, when it is not arrogant but humble."

Now I need a drink. ;)



Mia.....

I am not suggesting that are no problems with the current methods used by some scientists. My use of the words "real science" might have come across in the wrong way. I was only using them to describe the "real" scientific method. The "real" scientists performing "real" scientific research won't fall victim to their own pride or biases. Allowing those distractions has already corrupted their ability to perform meaningful research. Do you understand what I mean?

My mention of "crackpots" and their books was simply an example given to elaborate on what I felt might be an instance where any good scientist isn't going to just dive in and devote valuable time and grants to hunting for the Easter egg that the author claims to exist. This ties in to my comment about the ambiguity of reality. MANY authors out there prey on the weak-minded and uneducated to promote their ideas of the origins, nature, and meaning of the universe. That particular situation is viewed by many as entirely neglected by science (this is where I was attempting to tie in the article's concern), as very little research is being done into most of the fringe ideas presented by authors who write of "quantum consciousness" and the like. The saying goes; "If you think you know quantum theory, you don't know quantum theory."

Now, that doesn't mean that all fringe beliefs are attempting to address the nature of reality or "quantum such and such", but it does encompass a great deal of them. That has been my specific experience with the "outside-the-box" and "fringe" beliefs, but I am sure that there are others. My point is that you can rest assured that the scientists who are committed to performing the scientific method and their research according to the rules and protocols will yield meaningful answers into ANY new theory....simply because it will be testable. (string theory/M theory)

I hope you haven't read all of this and slapped your forehead because I've veered way off course. I was hoping to explain why I used the examples that I did and to point out that I added my own two cents when I addressed the quote you originally posted. :)

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Summerlander » 10 May 2013 19:17

I'd also like to point out that there is no such thing as a good religion. Religion can't even be class in the same calibre as science...

One is humble enough to admit it doesn't have all the answers but is willing to search them wherever the evidence may lead. The other is intellectually lazy enough to say that reality is the work of a magical and inexplicable God (or deities) and that it can be manipulated by superstitious deeds.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Heinrich
Posts: 13
Joined: 13 Jul 2012 05:25

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Heinrich » 12 May 2013 21:23

Summerland and Mia, Let me say that both Scientists and the Clergy are flawed. From a clinical stand point ask any "Dentist" someone who is a professional in the science of dentistry. They will (if they are not arrogant) tell you that 50% of what they practiced in the last 20 years was wrong.

The problem with science and the use of our "finite" thought process is that scientist will claim that if you can not "prove it" AND THEN "Reproduce" your results, it doesn't exist. How dare you say the Earth is not flat?

On the other hand, religion and dogma, though more dangerous than science, uses the same approach only you replace "Proof" with "faith". If you do not achieve the desired results, then you must not have enough faith. How dare you say the Earth is NOT the center of the Universe?

The only thing the inability to prove something and reproduce your results shows, is your ignorance. And there is nothing wrong with confessing your ignorance. I believe it's the fundamental beginning of wisdom.

Relying on "Faith based belief" is a crap shoot. But with almost every thing we do in this incarnate life, from a spiritual POV it's not so much the action as the intent. Just remember, what you are being taught in the name of a "Higher source" are words written by a fellow human.

As for death, decay and dust; what about the "Studies that say the "soul" has a weight of 37 grams ? Supposedly our deceased bodies lose 37 grams when we die. Where does it go? Again, the inability to understand or prove an after life only proves one's level of ignorance.

Personally, I have no Idea where the electrical magnetic energy source that lays within all of us goes once it's done with our "Meat Jackets". Perhaps our living bodies are no more than cocoons, and our Spiritual existence is a "body-less" butterfly? Again, I don't know, nor do I believe anyone in our incarnated position does. :-P

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Summerlander » 12 May 2013 22:48

Heinrich, you have just illustrated my point. A scientist will admit he has been wrong about his theories if new discoveries are made which contradict them.

The religious will never do this and will insist that their beliefs are the unquestionable truth because their ancient txts say so. The only area they consider chan

ging is their exegesis in an attempt to make their tenets fit in with scientifically established facts: the earth is round, orbits the sun, and was not made in six days.

Another misconception on your part is that you compared

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Summerlander » 12 May 2013 22:51

*sorry, phone playing up*

...you compared faith with proof when they stand on opposite ends of the spectrum?

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3651
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Summerlander » 12 May 2013 22:59

By the way, the 25 gram soul conclusion was made by a crackpot Christian scientist called Duncan MacDougall. But real scientist recreated his experiments and found that, not only did he have faulty scales, but all he showed was post-mortem weight loss (sweat evaporation and loss of urine).

You see, science quickly spots those who are not doing it properly. Moreover, science corrects itself and evolves. The same cannot be said about religion and pseudoscience. Another Christian scientist who is a bit of a crackpot is Rupert Sheldrake, who claims science has ten dogmas. Lol

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Heinrich
Posts: 13
Joined: 13 Jul 2012 05:25

Re: I died and crossed over in my dream

Postby Heinrich » 12 May 2013 23:58

I hate to say it but, Science can be used to prove or disprove almost anything. And the displacement of fluid comeback is poppy cock as the body fluids are still on the scale. Inside or outside, it is still there.

As for religion, I wouldn't trust any religion who claims to know the truth/answer. No more than I would trust a scientist telling me to eat "Trans-fats" instead of "Cholesterol". (See what I mean by disproving/proving things) I have a bio-physics background from a little school in Palo Alto. I've pondered the follies of man. All science is doing is trying to use primitive tools to explore the unknown. Scientists are the most arrogant creatures on the planet. Religion on the other hand is trying to pass on "amazing stories" through out the generations of what someone claimed to have witnessed 2 to 3 thousand years ago. Faith is believing that which is not supported by fact. Faith is playing the odds. You do that every time you jump on the freeway.

I believe that "Scientific Proof" is as VALID as "Faith" (or visa verse). The difference being, we "THINK" we understand what we call "Proof". Faith takes courage. The blind acceptance of scientific proof only takes a fool. How are those Trans fats working out for you? As for Faith, sometimes there is no scientific answer for what science might call: "Coincidence". (what a cop out) Sometimes there is no explanation for why some actions do not create an opposite opposed reaction. Sometimes there's no scientific explanation for why a plane crashes into a house and kills everyone except the father that was watching the late news while smoking a cigar in his recliner.

What makes you so sure you're right? I say question everything.


Return to “Share Your Lucid Dreams”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest