Intelligent Design

[Upchurch]

No, am merely reminding Tricky that we cannot separate our reality from our dream state

...and a children's song does this how?

 

[Belz...]

Actually, Iacchus, I have a very easy time seperating reality from fiction. I fully understand that my dreams are random (oh no, not THAT word again) firing of neurons that occur while I sleep. In my younger days, I attributed meaning to them, then I realized that they have no meaning. Jung was wrong, ok?

I was under the impression that dreams were some form of memory organisation process. Wouldn't that explain why most elements in dreams are from recent memory ?

 

[kmortis]

Or, perhaps if I said "elevated" state? This is one reason why it's so difficult to describe. It's enough to achieve this state, let alone maintain it and, since there comes a point when you have to wake up to the everyday reality of this world (unless you die of course) which, is crude by all accounts, you cannot think from both aspects simultaneously. So, while you may wake up in an elevated state, the best thing to do is drop it as soon as possible, otherwise all you can do is agonize over its loss, since it is not compatible (for the most part) with the comings and goings of this world. Indeed, it would be very much like the change of atmospheres between fish and air breathing mammals. You would be better off going back to behaving like a fish, as opposed to trying to breath air through a set of lungs you don't have.

So, you have a hard time getting to sleep. We are talking about "lucid" dreams here, right? (the faint guitar of Silent Lucidity is hear in the background) Again, Iacchus, you are being asked to CLEARLY state just WTF you're talking about, and you give yet more drivel.

 

[Iacchus]

...and a children's song does this how?

"Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream!"

 

[kmortis]

I was under the impression that dreams were some form of memory organisation process. Wouldn't that explain why most elements in dreams are from recent memory ?

I think that is on leading theory. Obviously, any research into the source of dreams is difficult at best, just due to noise correlation.

 

[Upchurch]

"Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream!"

Which in no way addresses Tricky's point other than to simply reiterate what you had said earlier. Sorta.

Do you understand the difference between expanding on a topic and reiterating it?

 

[Belz...]

Or, perhaps if I said "elevated" state? This is one reason why it's so difficult to describe. It's enough to achieve this state, let alone maintain it and, since there comes a point when you have to wake up to the everyday reality of this world (unless you die of course) which, is crude by all accounts, you cannot think from both aspects simultaneously.

Reality is crude ? How so ? Looks like a well-oiled, finely-tuned, by-the-numbers machine to me.

 

[Belz...]

No, am merely reminding Tricky that we cannot separate our reality from our dream state ... aside from the fact that we are "tied" to our physical bodies of course. But then again, yes, if we weren't tied to the physical world through our bodies, we would come face to face with the dream world.

I'm assuming someone asked for proof of this. And, if the dream world is so perfect, how come it makes so little sense ?

 

[Mercutio]

I was under the impression that dreams were some form of memory organisation process. Wouldn't that explain why most elements in dreams are from recent memory ?

Please have the courtesy to refrain from discussion of the actual scientific literature on dreams and dreaming. Everyone knows science cannot possibly study dreams, so those journals, texts, experiments, conferences, symposia, websites, etc. are all merely part of the elaborate ruse intended to fool people into thinking that science (of all things! Ha!) can look at dreaming!

Why, I am certain that Iacchus, since dreams and dreaming are the backbone of his "evidence", has already read the experimental literature on dreams (the one I said does not exist, remember? Or at least that we should politely ignore?) and critically examined his own dreams. There must be some reason that his own dreams reach the level of "solid evidence" (indeed, solid enough evidence that he will dismiss empirical studies that disagree with him. Heck, he'll dismiss anything that disagrees with his dreams, so they must be pretty good evidence!) and are somehow qualitatively different from the "dreams" (ptooey!) that these alleged scientists claim to study!

So anyway...quit referring to what science knows about dreams!

 

[Iacchus]

I was under the impression that dreams were some form of memory organisation process. Wouldn't that explain why most elements in dreams are from recent memory ?

Yes, there is sort of a "hashing out" process that occurs in our dreams. And at times it can be quite therapeutic. We can find the answers in our dreams that we can't fathom elsewhere.

 

[Iacchus]

I'm assuming someone asked for proof of this. And, if the dream world is so perfect, how come it makes so little sense ?

Yes, the dream world is very much like a "threshing floor" which exists between the natural world and the spiritual world. It's not supposed to make a whole lot of sense, until you begin to experience what's on the other side of it.

 

[Iacchus]

Why, I am certain that Iacchus, since dreams and dreaming are the backbone of his "evidence", has already read the experimental literature on dreams (the one I said does not exist, remember? Or at least that we should politely ignore?) and critically examined his own dreams. There must be some reason that his own dreams reach the level of "solid evidence" (indeed, solid enough evidence that he will dismiss empirical studies that disagree with him. Heck, he'll dismiss anything that disagrees with his dreams, so they must be pretty good evidence!) and are somehow qualitatively different from the "dreams" (ptooey!) that these alleged scientists claim to study!

So, if I were to die and go to heaven, would that merely be a result of the scientific findings or, the fact that people die and go to heaven? This is the absurdity of your argument here.

 

[Mercutio]

So, if I were to die and go to heaven, would that merely be a result of the scientific findings or, the fact that people die and go to heaven? This is the absurdity of your argument here.

If you are equating the "evidence" you get from your dreams with the "evidence" for an afterlife, then I agree; both are notions completely held by faith. This "fact that people die and go to heaven" is about the level of "facts" that come from you; something firmly believed, but in the absence of any evidence. (You also have things--like the tv model of the brain--that you believe in utter defiance of all available evidence, so it is clear that the mere absence of evidence is not a crucial part of your beliefs.)

No, Iacchus, I am pointing out that you accept your dream evidence without the slightest bit of critical analysis. You remind me of a friend I had once, who believed the Genesis story "because men have one fewer rib than women do, since god took one out of Adam to make Eve." He never actually went to the trouble of finding out if in fact men do have one fewer rib. The slightest bit of critical inquiry, and his "evidence" topples. You have the opportunity to count the ribs of your dreams, as it were, but avoid the scientific literature like it had venemous fangs. If you had true faith in your dreams, you would not avoid the literature; you would embrace it, fully expecting it to support you. You do not embrace the literature, though, because you know full well you are just making things up, and that there is no reason to suspect that any evidence whatsoever will fall in your favor.

This friend of mine was about 7 years old at the time. What's your excuse?

 

[Iacchus]

If you are equating the "evidence" you get from your dreams with the "evidence" for an afterlife, then I agree; both are notions completely held by faith. This "fact that people die and go to heaven" is about the level of "facts" that come from you; something firmly believed, but in the absence of any evidence. (You also have things--like the tv model of the brain--that you believe in utter defiance of all available evidence, so it is clear that the mere absence of evidence is not a crucial part of your beliefs.)

Yet there are many people who instinctively know this, regardless of whether the preacher told them or, whether they did or did not read about it in a scientific journal.

No, Iacchus, I am pointing out that you accept your dream evidence without the slightest bit of critical analysis. You remind me of a friend I had once, who believed the Genesis story "because men have one fewer rib than women do, since god took one out of Adam to make Eve." He never actually went to the trouble of finding out if in fact men do have one fewer rib. The slightest bit of critical inquiry, and his "evidence" topples. You have the opportunity to count the ribs of your dreams, as it were, but avoid the scientific literature like it had venemous fangs.

Which is to say, you take me to be some sort of "stupid sap." And, if I happened to be right, what does that make you?

If you had true faith in your dreams, you would not avoid the literature; you would embrace it, fully expecting it to support you. You do not embrace the literature, though, because you know full well you are just making things up, and that there is no reason to suspect that any evidence whatsoever will fall in your favor.

No, I don't embrace it, because it has everything to do with one's personal experience. If I wasn't capable of experiencing what I experience, then yes, I would have to rely on someone else to experience it for me. And, if that was the case, how would I really know?

This friend of mine was about 7 years old at the time. What's your excuse?

I'm a little bit older perhaps?

 

[c4ts]

Or, perhaps if I said "elevated" state?

No. You'd have to say what is elevated about it, or at least describe an ordinary routine and the same routine in the state of perfection (as you call it) for comparison instead of adding a label to one and not the other.

This is one reason why it's so difficult to describe.

Or perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about.

It's enough to achieve this state, let alone maintain it and, since there comes a point when you have to wake up to the everyday reality of this world (unless you die of course) which, is crude by all accounts, you cannot think from both aspects simultaneously. So, while you may wake up in an elevated state, the best thing to do is drop it as soon as possible, otherwise all you can do is agonize over its loss, since it is not compatible (for the most part) with the comings and goings of this world. Indeed, it would be very much like the change of atmospheres between fish and air breathing mammals. You would be better off going back to behaving like a fish, as opposed to trying to breath air through a set of lungs you don't have.

That's nice but you haven't even said what it is!

 

[Iacchus]

No. You'd have to say what is elevated about it, or at least describe an ordinary routine and the same routine in the state of perfection (as you call it) for comparison instead of adding a label to one and not the other.

Everything is more "enhanced," with more of a sense of depth, color and feel. I have only experienced bits and pieces of it and, at some rate extended samplings of it but, it would best be described as "exquisite" to our senses.

Or perhaps because you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course.

That's nice but you haven't even said what it is!

That's because I'm still a fish, like you.

 

[kmortis]

Yet there are many people who instinctively know this, regardless of whether the preacher told them or, whether they did or did not read about it in a scientific journal.

Ya mean like many people "instinticively" know that the world is flat? Or that the sun goes around the Earth?

Which is to say, you take me to be some sort of "stupid sap."

You said it, not me.

And, if I happened to be right, what does that make you?

Well, since you haven't actually given one shred of evidence...I'm not all that worried about what I, Mercutio or any of the other people here might be made out to be in the infantessimal chance that you're right. Now, are you actually going to supply evidence, or just keep spreading innunendo, fairytales and fiction?

No, I don't embrace it, because it has everything to do with one's personal experience. If I wasn't capable of experiencing what I experience, then yes, I would have to rely on someone else to experience it for me. And, if that was the case, how would I really know?

So you spent your childhood and early adolesence reinventing the wheel, electronics, the printed wire circuit board and everything else necessary for the construction of a computer then?

I'm a little bit older perhaps?

8?

 

[Mercutio]

Yet there are many people who instinctively know this, regardless of whether the preacher told them or, whether they did or did not read about it in a scientific journal.

Really? Instinctively? It had nothing to do with their culture, their family, their learning? This is yet another of your claims that is unsupported. I assume you actually believe what you are saying, but there is really no reason to. Not for us, not for you.

Which is to say, you take me to be some sort of "stupid sap." And, if I happened to be right, what does that make you?

I originally would have said "ignorant". After a while, the evidence convinced me to take the position that you are "willfully ignorant", turning down the offers that others here had given you of sources of information you could access yourself. Now, though, after people have spoon-fed you corrections on your logic (in incredibly clear language--we have some amazing posters here), corrections on your factual errors, corrections on your misuse of rhetoric...you really have no excuses left. "Stupid sap" would not be my choice of words at all, but if you think your behavior here might lead people to think that of you, perhaps you need to re-think your image.

And if you happen to be right, you are doing a piss-poor job of the most important task you possibly could have chosen. Again...perhaps you had better re-think your strategy. If you happen to be right, it is much too important for you to lose people based on terrible logic and evidence.

No, I don't embrace it, because it has everything to do with one's personal experience. If I wasn't capable of experiencing what I experience, then yes, I would have to rely on someone else to experience it for me. And, if that was the case, how would I really know?

You don't know, apparently. You really and truly are not capable of experiencing the things you claim. No one is. You have claimed to know things that are unknowable, by you or by anyone. (indeed, you claim to know things that in other parts of your own argument you claim are not knowable). The best thing you could possibly do would be to realize your limitations...but I doubt anyone here is holding their breath.

I am, though, happy to see you finally admit that you reject the relevant literature on your most important subject. You dodged that for some time, if I recall. So, you base your world-view on your dreams, and yet you are afraid to learn the first thing about them. This speaks volumes.

I'm a little bit older perhaps?

Older than the universe itself, I would suppose. Only that impossible scenario would suffice. (The funny thing is, you will claim to be older than the universe, because otherwise you would have to admit your inability to know.)

 

[KingMerv00]

"Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream!"

I suggest a more appropriate song:

"They're coming to take me away HAHA...They're coming to take me away"

Still not getting your point.

 

[c4ts]

Everything is more "enhanced," with more of a sense of depth, color and feel. I have only experienced bits and pieces of it and, at some rate extended samplings of it but, it would best be described as "exquisite" to our senses.

That's not perfection, that's a marijuana high! No wonder you can't complete a coherent argument without lapsing into prose.