(2017-09-22, 09:58 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]It is usually presumed that it is the brain that produces dreams but perhaps that isn't the case? I started this thread so as not to continue hijacking Chuck's thread on dream structure.
I think the brain is involved in mediating the particular kinds of conscious experience we have including dreams. Whether you view it as correlative or causative depends on metaphysical assumptions about time, space, and causality. You can physically alter the brain and get effects on consciousness and vice versa. Mostly I go with the interface model: that there is something else out there in the ether that is a version of "me" outside the "video game me" and anything that is uncertain on the quantum level is able to be controlled or "hacked" or interfaced with. The brain is an interface that reliably (for most people) allows the cascading of tiny quantum uncertainties up into highly organized feedback loops affecting large scale physical stuff.
Certain modes of operation and certain feedback loops dominate brain function during normal waking consciousness. These dominant modes and feedback loops can block out noise and extraneous influences on the brain's quantum uncertainty receptors (be they micro-tubules or water molecules or something else). When the dominant modes are not running things, it is easier for emotionally meaningful extraneous influences from past or future or sub-conscious or higher self or someone else to be picked up and cascaded up into manifested experiences and that is what I think precognitive or symbolic dreams are.
IMO, all forms of consciousness require a body in some sense. A "disembodied consciousness" still has a body - a point of locality with identity and limitations and rules - it is just made of some other kind of stuff. And "stuff" is whatever consciousness differentiates from itself. It is the fundamental split of Oneness into duality and then self-reflection. Without any rules, our heads would explode back into Oneness - or Nothingness if you're in a bad mood... same difference.
(2017-09-22, 08:18 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Although the brain may not be functioning, I think we have to accept that this doesn't mean that the cells from which the brain is composed have necessarily stopped functioning. It's just that the brain is not functioning as we would popularly understand it.
In the period between the brain not functioning as a complete organ, but before the cells from which the brain is composed have completely stopped functioning, there appears to be a temporary window of opportunity, where these anomalous experiences can occur.
Brain's and neurons don't seem to be essential to organisms, so the non-functiong brain argument, may not be as relevant as we think. There are simple organisms (i.e. Paramecium) which don't contain any neurons at all, yet they happily swim around, find food, a mate, have sex, and seem to learn. Other organisms like slime mold don't have any neurons either, they also seem to learn, and even anticipate (periodicity). There is no brain to stop functioning in these organisms, they don't have any neurons that can fire. Yet in studies, they seem to demonstrate seemingly intelligent behavior. The same goes for our own cells, they seem to organize themselves in an intelligent-like manner. Because of this, it's logical to consider whether a similar mechanism which allows these simple neuron-less organisms to exhibit seemingly intelligent behavior, might also somehow be involved in our own intelligent behavior.
I certainly think that might be the case. Larger organisms with neurons appear to be a later evolutionary step, than those smaller or flatter organisms without neurons. The neurons main function seems to be the movement of information to and from a centralized organ in the larger organism. In that sense they act as a relay, passing information back and forth. But anything which moves around in our reality, whether or not they have any neurons, all seem to contain these repeating helix like protein structures like cillia, centrioles and microtubules, and the brains networks are simply jam packed with such structures.
It's looking possible, that something within these repeating protein structures, perhaps within the proteins tiny cavities, can afford some degree of isolation to particles. And that it is somewhere around this deeper level of any organism, that my experiences arise. This and other phenomena, further suggests to me that information may not really be stored, in the same way as we understand things.
For example, our understanding of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, although very useful, may not be how information underlying our reality is accessed, manipulated and stored. Such information might for instance be stored in some other way, for example embedded within just two, two dimensional branes. That might mean how we currently understand reality in terms of 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time, may only be the result of the processing of information, that is actually stored in a different way.
If that were so, much of the anomalous phenomena which we discuss on here... (anomalous phenomena that I think is better understood as the dislocation of information within spacetime) might be explained. And that the current way we understand reality, may be a misunderstanding in how information that underlies our everyday existence is really connected. That's the idea that things really ain't joined up quite the way we popularly think they are. Things are connected up differently.
Viewed from this new perspective, I think we can begin to explain not just anomalous phenomena, which has been the clue that something is wrong with how we understand our existence, but on a much more practical level, it might free us all from a misunderstanding that has somehow trapped us.
Seems to me like a ton of wishful thinking going on.
But I have to admit, I don't follow most of it. Especially the 2nd to last paragraph is meaningless to me.
(2017-09-23, 09:59 AM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]The idea that matter and consciousness are co-dependant is one I find compelling.
I think you are on to something.
As I think I have posted in other threads (?),, I think matter is only an experience created by consciousness and has no objective existence.
(2017-09-23, 07:59 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It's a consolidation of 10 years of work, and then some, so I wouldn't expect people to get it... maybe get parts of it... most people look at me as if I'm off my rocker... but it's proven useful to me to put these thoughts down in writing anyway. The second to last para are difficult ideas that are my most recent from the last year or so.
I still say you are ignoring a mountain of evidence leading in a totally different direction. Some of it I have pointed you to earlier in this thread.
But there you go: we all have the same evidence to look at, but it is up to each of us to sort through it and make sense of it in what ever way we can.
With a variety of evidence, I refuted at least 1/2 dozen of your (honestly pretty lame) assertions about why brain is critical to dreams and life in general.
OTOH- you're approach is to simply ignore all that, and make a new set somewhat incomprehensible assertions and back them up with nothing.
That's a novel approach to discovery.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Did I misunderstand it? Really?
OK. So let's just take just the first sentence of your post and break it down.
snip- brain's and neurons don't seem to be essential to organisms, so the non-functiong brain argument, may not be as relevant as we think. There are simple organisms (i.e. Paramecium) which don't contain any neurons at all
So you are asserting that the brain is not the most complex organ ever found by man. It is NOT the most powererfull processing machine of any type mankind has ever studied.
According to your statement it is an assembly of unassociated cells,, stand-alone living organisms (paramecium). What could possibly lead you to this conclusion?
You can't just dream up whatever you like, and call it a theory. That's not how science works.
I"m not asking for undeniable proof: after all if it has done anything, this forum has shown that very little in this world can be proven absolutely. However, I am asking for some logical train of thought and evidence trail.
Sorry Max, this seems like random meanderings to me that deserve no real consideration.
So you ignore a whole list of evidence to the contrary and pretend that it was never offered, and then you state that somehow I misunderstood your post?
No, I think I understood it. I just feel it is babble.
(2017-09-22, 12:54 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]If your brain is so important for dreaming, how would you explain the fact that people like Pam Reynolds and Eben Alexander (and hundreds of thousands of other NDE experiences) had their experiences w/o the benefit of a functioning brain?
You're explaining one mystery using another mystery. Think about this. Would evolution go through all the trouble to produce a brain that uses 20% of the energy the whole body needs to function if it weren't necessary? Your basic fault is assuming the testimonial provided by Reynolds and Speltzer is an accurate accounting. Without a time machine to verify what happened we won't ever know how accurate the testimonials are. You assume far more than has been verified. I can't comment on Eben.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting a brain isn’t an essential component of life as a human being. Merely questioning its true role in consciousness.
(2017-09-24, 11:06 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]With a variety of evidence, I refuted at least 1/2 dozen of your (honestly pretty lame) assertions about why brain is critical to dreams and life in general.
OTOH- you're approach is to simply ignore all that, and make a new set somewhat incomprehensible assertions and back them up with nothing.
That's a novel approach to discovery.
Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Didn't I misunderstand it? Really?
OK. So let's just take just the first sentence of your post and break it down.
snip- brain's and neurons don't seem to be essential to organisms, so the non-functiong brain argument, may not be as relevant as we think. There are simple organisms (i.e. Paramecium) which don't contain any neurons at all
So you are asserting that the brain is not the most complex organ ever found by man. It is NOT the most powererfull processing machine of any type mankind has ever studied.
According to your statement it is an assembly of unassociated cells,, stand-alone living organisms (paramecium). What could possibly lead you to this conclusion?
You can't just dream up whatever you like, and call it a theory. That's not how science works.
I"m not asking for undeniable proof: after all if it has done anything, this forum has shown that very little in this world can be proven absolutely. However, I am asking for some logical train of thought and evidence trail.
Sorry Max, this seems like random meanderings to me that deserve no real consideration.
So you ignore a whole list of evidence to the contrary and pretend that it was never offered, and then you state that somehow I misunderstood your post?
No, I think I understood it. I just feel it is babble.
Just to be clear, I am NOT asserting this incredible organ does what most in science says it does (that it is the seat of consciousness), but it's hard to ignore the fabulous complexity and array of capabilities that it seems to have.
(2017-09-22, 12:54 PM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]If your brain is so important for dreaming, how would you explain the fact that people like Pam Reynolds and Eben Alexander (and hundreds of thousands of other NDE experiences) had their experiences w/o the benefit of a functioning brain?
You're explaining one mystery using another mystery. Think about this. Would evolution go through all the trouble to produce a brain that uses 20% of the energy the whole body needs to function if it weren't necessary? Your basic fault is assuming the testimonial provided by Reynolds and Speltzer is an accurate accounting. Without a time machine to verify what happened we won't ever know how accurate the testimonials are. You assume far more than has been verified. I can't comment on Eben.
(2017-09-24, 11:19 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You're explaining one mystery using another mystery. Think about this. Would evolution go through all the trouble to produce a brain that uses 20% of the energy the whole body needs to function if it weren't necessary? Your basic fault is assuming the testimonial provided by Reynolds and Speltzer is an accurate accounting. Without a time machine to verify what happened we won't ever know how accurate the testimonials are. You assume far more than has been verified. I can't comment on Eben.
Yes. Just like a few hundred years ago some people explained why sailors could sail around the world back to their departure point, and what they said was a deep and unexplained mystery at the time: that gravity could hold us all to a huge sphere. But it was eventually explained. And like that mystery, at least the mystery I am using, comports with observations.
First- we already know a fully functioning brain is not
completely necessary as shown by the cases of hydrocephalus and less convincingly to some, NDE. That's already been demonstrated right?.
Now: we know it seems to be a critical organ for most people, that is also undeniable. So that might help explain to you why it seems so important in terms of energy use and evolution.
As to it's actual purpose? Why are you assuming that if evolution has decided it is so important (BTW- I'm not fully on-board with this line of thinking, but I admit it is wide-spread in science) that it must be because it is the core of our soul or cognition? Is it not important enough that it seems to be deeply and inextricably involved with every sense and muscle action we produce?
Is that not important enough for you?
Must it be MORE important than that? If so, why?