Lucid Dreamers and God

For those who wish to discuss the purely scientific aspects of sleep and dreams, including new research and future technologies.

Have you ever tried to communicate with God in the phase state (LD/OOBE/AP)?

Yes, and I was successful
3
7%
Yes, but nothing happened
2
4%
Yes, but what was encountered was a product of my mind
5
11%
No, but I am willing to try
21
47%
No, and I'm reluctant to try out of fear
0
No votes
No, and I never will (I'm an atheist who doesn't see any point)
14
31%
 
Total votes: 45

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Philosopher8659 » 16 Feb 2015 05:00

You just proven you cannot even reason.

Let me show you what some peasants were working on.

Definition: A thing is any material in an form or shape.

Therefore, we can name a thing, and we can name the two elements of a thing, a things form and a things material difference. The same biologically, we either abstract form or material difference. That is all we can name.

Thus we that three, and only three categories of names.
Things can be defined, and they are defined as a combination of names of their form and the material in that form.

Neither form nor material can be defined, they are not things. We can only name them. Common grammar, logic itself, depends on two distinct naming conventions. One is defined in terms of the other, predicates, must, as Aristotle noted, always be learned by experience, perception itself. Therefore, until standard perceptibles are established, a species is proto linguistic. Not even a modern dictionary will give you that information, yet Plato knew it, wrote about it. The Book uses it from the very start of the book to paint pictures and test judgment. I.e. to test your analogical reasoning because logic is not logic until it complies with analogic. Or in short,
We testify to what we have seen, and speak of what we have known.

Therefore, Definition is simply the preservation of the social convention of names which equate the name of a thing to the names of its elements.
The names of things, is the Subject naming convention. The name of a thing as a combination of names of that things elements is the Predicate naming convention.

So, You really believe that you can reason? I hardly think so. There is no correct grammar book today. You believe that Einstein could reason when he did not know he was violating the first principles of language?

Metaphor is a way of using predicates to point to subjects which are equal, and synonomous, like God and Truth. If you are proto linguistic, your mind fantasizes the wrong thing. The Book, as is written in it, tests human judgment. In a metaphor, tests the heart of man.
The only reason I am alive today is because I was shown, as if time had stopped that I had just made a fatal mistake. I was given all the time I needed to examine and think about my situation, from a vantage point far from my real body. I was seconds away from death, and given a choice.
Last edited by Philosopher8659 on 16 Feb 2015 05:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3643
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 16 Feb 2015 05:13

I can reason as much as you can write in English, my friend. :mrgreen:

AJ Ayer. Get some logical positivism down you.

[ 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

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Philosopher8659 » 16 Feb 2015 05:18

LAMO, thanks for referring me to someone who could not reason his way out of a bag of potato chips. Really brightens my day.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3643
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 16 Feb 2015 05:22

I'm not the one trying to prove something here. I have not seen you win a Nobel prize either if you are such a great philosopher, linguist and mathematician. You have already put me off of taking you seriously when you spoke in metaphors and demonstrated your ignorance of Darwinism.

[ 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

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Philosopher8659 » 16 Feb 2015 05:27

Really? I was unaware of the speed at which you can read my posted essays. You really are amazing.
I was under the impression, that by definition,
Since every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is designed to maintain and promote the life of the body, that Darwin showed complete ignorance of this fact.
By definition, any species that dominates the environment to extinction is not the fittest. It may be physically stronger, but it just killed itself, much like your own reasoning.

A wiser man once said, "in order to have life, and have it more abundantly." This means a balanced ecosystem, even by definition.

Now I just posted another 456 pages of proofed mathematics, enjoy.

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby deschainXIX » 16 Feb 2015 05:42

"Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism is designed to maintain and promote the life of the body."

One thing is clear. You really should brush up on your Darwinism. Or simple anatomy and physiology. Natural selection is a blind mechanism, not a designer. And it shows.

Also, "fitness" is not necessarily adaptivity to an individual's or population's environment but a reproductive fitness. Any attribute that enhances an individual's reproductive potency (and, incidentally, that includes staying alive long enough to proliferate) is considered a "fit" attribute.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Well said.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3643
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Summerlander » 16 Feb 2015 05:42

I am amazing, yes, thank you. Again you misunderstand the term "fit," Philosopher. It doesn't necessarily mean physically stronger. You clearly don't know Darwin so I suggest you read his literature or even the updates that support his theory (and fact).

What you are talking about is self-preservation, which, if you were familiar with the diversity of life and its functions, you'd know isn't always present. A mother octopus, for example, will sacrifice itself to hatch thousands of its eggs. In humans, as I mentioned before, the desire for self-destruction can override the survival instinct.

So no, life doesn't necessarily promote life, it preserves itself successfully or unsuccessfully (this in itself shows it is not intelligently designed - or God is a terrible engineer :mrgreen:) and reproduces/replicates. Now here is where I expose your oxymoron: if life promoted itself and were intelligently designed, 99% of all the species that ever walked the Earth would not have gone extinct.

Lol, my friend deschainXIX has just clarified the Darwinian terminology for you. :-D

Goodnight, guys!

[ 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

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Philosopher8659 » 16 Feb 2015 06:03

I guess you cannot see it again.
When you divide a living organism into its environmental acquisition systems, you go from the linear thinking of Darwin, to a multidimensional concept.

Each system addresses a portion of life, each addresses a specific environmental variable. Thus, you cannot look at things as simple mindedly as Darwin.

So, once again, what is a fit mind?

What environmental variable is it meant to address, and what portion of the environment has it to master in order for man to survive? The answer is in the essay, hidden in a puzzle of the Book. The answer is biologically provable. Yet it was not recognized by Darwin.

The Book divides living organisms into its component environmental acquisition systems. Multidimensional thinking.

Or do you really believe the seven last plagues of man is what you imagine it to be? There are seven environmental variables we have to deal with. You keep talking about living organisms like Darwin, simple one dimensional things.

User avatar
nesgirl
Posts: 1278
Joined: 25 May 2014 23:10

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby nesgirl » 16 Feb 2015 06:14

...
Last edited by nesgirl on 20 May 2015 01:12, edited 1 time in total.
Goodbye forever...
I dare you Summer and Deschain, to find where I am hiding, and try to attack.

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: Lucid Dreamers and God

Postby Philosopher8659 » 16 Feb 2015 06:25

Nes, you are not a very good reader.

My deity, as stated is not anthropomorphic. I am not speaking from a proto linguistic perspective.

According to science? You don't know anything about language. You can use words according to definition, or by enumeration, as you are doing.

By definition, our purpose is the same as any other environmental acquisition system of a living organism.

Biological fact.


Return to “Dream Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest