Summerlander wrote:You also say that colours have no physical correlate... well, how do you know when we do not yet have full knowledge of all brain interactions? Also, can you look at the hardware inside a computer and identify the colourful picture of a beach? No, you can't. And yet, the software may display it.
Color, like everything else, happens in experience. In dreaming, I have seen colors that I have never experienced in the waking state. Just another bit that makes you go hmmm. I'm not laying it down as something that suggests game over.
Summerlander wrote:I hope I got rid of that question mark for you...
First, if you really know this guy, urge him to do something about his website. Good Lord! He's probably doing it himself, so I have to give him credit, but as a web programmer by trade, it makes me crazy. Very difficult to really find anything. I'd never heard of him until you mentioned him in another post. I downloaded a pdf, but, like so many LD sites, it was all about technique.
As to the quote you pulled, for me it's neither here nor there. Just seems specualtive. If I read it right, he is suggesting that the added length of the optic nerve, or its correlate in whatever physical sense we are talking about, explains why LDs can be so hyper-realistic in comparison. This is a bit like saying that a giraffe has a weaker metabolism than a mouse because the input is so much further away from the digestive system where the action takes place, when, in fact, a mouse has a weak metabolism in comparison to a giraffe. I mean, it's not a bad hypothesis, but it doesn't remove the question mark. I'm still left with hmmm.
Summerlander wrote:It's not a container. We are our brains. Destroy the brain and there is no mind. It is the brain as an organism that minds things. The brain is computerised. That is the only evidence we have. No "self" as an entity has ever been identified inside it.
It looks like we are in agreement that "self" or "ego" has no reality. You can't find it in the brain (I'm interested in how it is you look for it there), and I can't find it in experience except as a concept taken to be true.
Summerlander wrote:And no, there is no soul inside the pineal gland.
There's the word "soul" again. It turns out that it is only you that have used that word, and on numerous occasions, while I have yet to utter it once.
Summerlander wrote:My friend, I never said you are weak-minded, you're saying it
Yes, I put words in your mouth, you never said it (but you were thinking it!). But they are my words, apologies if anyone was misdirected. And, of course, "soul" is yours, not mine.
Summerlander wrote:Whether a person can hold more than two thoughts in their heads or not, what does that prove? What is the point?
The point being that the integration of all the data in experience, whether internal or external, is happening somewhere else, the mind just being part of the data, not the integrator. This recognition is for me a link in the chain, not the chain.
Summerlander wrote:You are all the thoughts that you've had so far.
Who or what is the "you" in this sentence. I take it you don't mean self or ego, since as you indicated above it has no reality.
Summerlander wrote:who understand scientific gobbledygook
Now here's something I can agree with!
The history of science is a history of starting with parts and extrapolating backwards to a whole. It's more than ironic that science insists on a world of parts, but is seeking a whole, unified theory to explain it.
Unfortunately, to make a fair assessment of all the references you keep throwing out at me, I would have to read them all, and then further understand them in terms of the researcher's overall goals and stance, that's just not going to happen. But whether you choose to believe it or not, I've read more than you can shake a stick at. I've given all that up. As I've mentioned, I'm sticking with what is concrete- my own direct experience.
I will say this about what I can glean from the bit you've posted here, and this applies in a general way. I do believe it to be one side of the coin, this "whole from the parts" idea. What science neglects, first because the notion is viewed as suspect, and second because they begin with suspect premises of their own, is the other side of the coin, i.e. the "parts from the whole". I will throw some references out to you, but like me, you probably won't read them, nor do I expect you to. See the mathematical biologist Robert Rosen. See the German zoologist Wolfgang Schad. Above all see the scientific writings of Goethe. Goethe turns the whole scientific method on its head. He eschews theories and instead finds that the phenomenon in itself tells you all you need to know when it comes to seeing the parts in the whole.
Summerlander wrote:But science does not adhere to dogmas, only facts supported by empirical evidence.
I wrote a response here, but I will send back channel as this is getting of topic.
Summerlander wrote:The reason why people say "my thoughts" is because the ego has a tendency to claim that which does not arise from itself as its own.
here are so many factors involved in processes that we are not conscious of which influence decision and yet the ego at the surface reasons, justifies and hijacks responsibility.
I 100% agree with this. See, we're not so far apart. We agree on all kinds of things. I may diverge a little here, because for me the independent ego is merely a concept taken to be true and concepts aren't "things" that have intents and and can do things like claim, reason, or justify.
Summerlander wrote:By the way, I only asked how old you are because it isn't the first time I get 15 year-olds who think they've got it all sussed, but I am glad your age is the reverse.
Whether 15 or 51, what does that matter as long as the substance stands on its own? But I am rather offended that you think I write like a 15 year old in style! I jest. There are a lot of young people on this board, which I think is really awesome. I wish I had a forum like this at 15. I don't even think I knew what a lucid dream was at that age. But let's face it, young people, a period now and again, a separation of paragraphs, a capital letter to start a new thought wouldn't kill you, and it would go a long way in keeping my eyes from bleeding. Now, Get off my lawn!
Summerlander wrote:Now, since we can all agree that in a lucid dream anything can be experienced because the mind is the limit, isn't it feasible that the lucid dream state can realistically emulate the separation of consciousness from the body?
Feasible, certainly, final word, not by any stretch of the imagination. My so-called OBEs have a consistently, and completely different flavor than my LDs. This is NOT definitive, IS "subjective", but still leaves the door open. The length of the optic nerve explaining a fairly exact replica isn't going to cut it for me. My experience and experiments, especially in situ, rather than remembered, are very compelling, even if not always positive, that something besides a LD may be happening. I mean, as long as the categorization is broad enough you can put it all together, we might as well throw the waking state into the mix in your diagram. But I am interested in the details as much as the generals. I abhor white washing. This may be a bent of character, but it is what it is. So, as Peter says, I'll just keep investigating.
Summerlander wrote:Here's a question for you: Does a rock have awareness?
No, but, then, neither does a human. In my view awareness isn't something you possess, it's what you ARE. Was that the sound of your cell phone hitting the wall as you shout, "My god, how can anyone believe such tripe!"
Merry Christmas Summerland! And to everyone here, happy holidays!