Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 17 Apr 2014, at 21:27, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: No problem with this, but I don't see the point I'm aware of this. But I'm no longer buying you Bruno. You don't see the point because you don't much care. That is not true. If you have a point, you might try to present it clearly. I will wait for reasonable arguments, and I will skip posts containing ad hominem speculations. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:42:39 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:39, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 12:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. The experience by Jouvet shows correspondence of behavior instead. LABERGE S. P. DEMENT, W. C., 1982, Lateralization of alpha activity for dreamed singing and counting during REM sleep, SPR abstract 1981, Psychophysiology, 19 (1982), pp. 331-332. LABERGE S., GREENLEAF, W. KEDZIERSKI, B., 1983, Physiological responses to dreamed sexual activity during REM sleep, SPR abstracts, 1983, Psychophysiology, 20 (1983), pp. 454-455. LABERGE S., LEVITAN L., GORDON, M. DEMENT W. C., 1983, The psychophysiology of lucid dream initiation, SPR abstracts, 1983, Psychophysiology, 20, pp. 455. Many information can be found in the selected papers book: LABERGE S. RHEINGOLD H., 1990, Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming, Ballantine Books, New York. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. Not specific thought, but enough to distinguish singing from counting or computing, or to see that muscles would perform if they were not inhibited. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. The lucid dreamers can
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for a number of days, will began to pass out more and more. They don't return to normal given a good
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 13:43, ghib...@gmail.com wrote: But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will fell much fatigued. But if you switch to different kind mental challenge you will feel muchLESS fatigued. My brain corrected this automatically, and unconsciously :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for a number of days, will began to pass out more and more. They don't return to normal given a
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 12:39:38 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, April 12, 2014 11:53:12 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 10:49:29 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence you mention. There's evidence of correspondence with areas of brain activity. From memory there is a connection between this phenomenon and types of activity before sleep. I'm pretty sure there's already a lot done in the related area of how the brain takes action to support learning - particularly when body coordination is involved, and there are studies showing areas correspondence in dream states with activities like that. There may be a more general correspondenceI'd be surprised to hear the technology is anywhere near being able to identify specific kinds of thought with dreams. And I'd put money down that there are ways yet to confirm such thoughts were indeed taking place. There is a real problem with dolloping very large assumptions onto the top of very limited evidence. The problem is, doing can obscure the real landscape of uncertainties and possibilities and in doing damage the chances of real discovery now and in the future. In the middle paragraph I meant to say I'd money down there is not. I can understand how this sort of evidence could create an impression - particularly an impression already desirable such as this dreams explanation you appear to favour. But there are many possible explanations at this stage,. Your explanation - can be tested already in various soft and hard ways. For example, one major problem is the evidence that REM activities are essential for conscious functioning. People denied REM sleep for a
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Friday, April 11, 2014 11:21:29 PM UTC-4, Kim Jones wrote: On 12 Apr 2014, at 4:47 am, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. Last night I had a lucid dream (must be this thread getting into the unconscious and stirring all sorts of things up.) Your typical flying dream, complete with the waving of arms/wings flapping in order to levitate. It was all quite natural and easy. I “flew” up outside the apartment block where I live, to inspect the outside of the building (in “reality” we are about to undergo a re-pinning operation as the mortar is crumbling in spots) and I remember assuring myself as I was zooming around the outside that “yes, this is obviously where I live”. At the same time, “I” was able to observe myself in the act of believing falsity. I could see that the building I was hovering outside (just like an avatar in Second Life”) looked absolutely NOTHING like the building in which I really live, yet I both believed it was the true and correct building and simultaneously observed myself in the act of believing something false. Both states involved a level of self-observation and belief. Nice. I think this hints at the narrowness of modal assumptions about consciousness. Qualia is not just belief or a function of belief, as it can be both believed and disbelieved on different levels of awareness at the same time. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
YES! I strongly believe that the agenda of control in lucid dreams is a false path. It also doesn't work beyond a certain point. One encounters stronger and stronger resistance from the dream process against one's attempts to steer the dream in the direction desired by the ego. What lucid dreaming allows is a kind of conscious conversation with the unconscious (or the soul, whatever word you prefer). If you give up control you can surrender to a deep experience that has many similarities with a psychedelic 'trip'. On Friday, April 11, 2014 2:34:10 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day-dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring control habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a big dream. It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. There is a California university psychologist who teaches his students how to get themselves to dream,lucidly. The psychologist believes that all the biblical visions of the Bible were all, in fact, lucid dreams. You can even buy or build lucid dream machine, which can help some people to awaken in the dream, and be lucid. (just search the net on lucid dream machine). It's fascinating and the thought comes to mind (my mind) that it's all a solipsism. My question then, would be, who is the dreamer? An indian was pleased to teach philosophy in lucid dreams, and he took pleasure to mock the audience by pretending *he* was the dreamer, and that he controls everything, and that the others where existing only thanks to him. Eventually, a guy of the audience came to him with a wood stick and begun to strike him, and then asked him are you really sure you know who is the dreamer and who is in control, and continued to strike him until he woke up! :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day- dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring control habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a big dream. It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Hee Hee! This is an ancient Hindu joke where the Guru and the King were having a discussion on reality. The Guru held the world was maya (illusion) and the King thought otherwise. While discussing this, the King and the Guru accidently walk up the trail of a Bull elephant during rutting season. The elephant turned and charged at the King and the Guru. Both men escaped and continued the discussion. So, the King said, do you still think that everything is an illusion? Yes,the Guru replied, everything is all maya, an illusion. The King said: But when the elephant charged I saw you running! The Guru replied, Yes, your majesty, but that too, was an illusion. -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, Apr 11, 2014 12:44 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:52, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. There is a California university psychologist who teaches his students how to get themselves to dream,lucidly. The psychologist believes that all the biblical visions of the Bible were all, in fact, lucid dreams. You can even buy or build lucid dream machine, which can help some people to awaken in the dream, and be lucid. (just search the net on lucid dream machine). It's fascinating and the thought comes to mind (my mind) that it's all a solipsism. My question then, would be, who is the dreamer? An indian was pleased to teach philosophy in lucid dreams, and he took pleasure to mock the audience by pretending *he* was the dreamer, and that he controls everything, and that the others where existing only thanks to him. Eventually, a guy of the audience came to him with a wood stick and begun to strike him, and then asked him are you really sure you know who is the dreamer and who is in control, and continued to strike him until he woke up! :) Bruno -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day-dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring control habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a big dream. It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 12 Apr 2014, at 4:47 am, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. Last night I had a lucid dream (must be this thread getting into the unconscious and stirring all sorts of things up.) Your typical flying dream, complete with the waving of arms/wings flapping in order to levitate. It was all quite natural and easy. I flew up outside the apartment block where I live, to inspect the outside of the building (in reality we are about to undergo a re-pinning operation as the mortar is crumbling in spots) and I remember assuring myself as I was zooming around the outside that yes, this is obviously where I live. At the same time, I was able to observe myself in the act of believing falsity. I could see that the building I was hovering outside (just like an avatar in Second Life) looked absolutely NOTHING like the building in which I really live, yet I both believed it was the true and correct building and simultaneously observed myself in the act of believing something false. Both states involved a level of self-observation and belief. Kim Kim Jones B.Mus.GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Mobile: 0450 963 719 Landline: 02 9389 4239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 09 Apr 2014, at 18:47, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:51:13 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Sorry old chap could you clarify Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. How do you know that? It's plausible that they play a role in training for future scenarios, for example. I'm not discounting that there might be more to it than that -- I am fascinated by dreams too -- but to claim that they are irrelevant to behavior seems quite a stretch. Yes, that is a big stretch with some amount of positivism which contradicts Craig's own philosophy. Obviously, also, dreams cannot influence the behavior *during* the dream, because we are paralyzed at that time, but it is clear that it might very well influence the behavior in the waking life which follows, even in case we don't remember the dream, and a fortiori when we do. Bruno Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics Richard: I do that all the time. Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument, like when people say it is obvious that ..., or God told me..., etc. I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal second hand experience.Here is an example: ? Looks like the thunderous silence of Vimalakirti :) Bruno On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance that made it stand out as not just another dream. A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge, we can undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the different logics between the individual, the collective, and also the difference between the provable, the knowable, the observable. For a long time, science did not believe in lucid dreams - it took some rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. The first doing an experience showing their verifiable existence was a parapsychologist, and he published in a review of parapsychology, which was of course ignored, probably for that reason, by the mainstream. But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could know it long before scientific method could catch up. Yes. And I can imagine that the ocular motor neurons would have been inhibited too, and the lucid dream would have stayed ... in parapsychology. Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that is sometimes both rational OK. and correct That is ambiguous. to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is always theory dependent, and all theories are false, at different degrees, so, well, it is certainly sound to entertain beliefs outside the scientific evidence. And 1500 times so in fields where we tolerate the authoritative argument, like theology or health to give two examples. I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another thought in the random,
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics Richard: I do that all the time. Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument, like when people say it is obvious that ..., or God told me..., etc. My bad. I thought you meant personal experience I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal second hand experience.Here is an example: I usually forget to mention that the existence of a Metaverse is motivated by its solution of the hierarchy problem in the Standard Model where the force of gravity is small compared to any of the 3 gauge forces. The hypothesis is that gravity is free to propagate in the Metaverse, but the gauge forces are confined to the brane of the Universe. Harvard Physics Professor Lisa Randall was the leading investigator that established the need for a Metaverse. A theory for the properties of the Metaverse may be found by Dimensional Analysis, even simpler than what I learned as an undergrad mech engr major. Occum's Razor dictates that we start from a total of 26 dimensions. Following some theoretical results derived from string theory, we split those dimensions into 12 for the Universe and 14 for the Metaverse. We factor into this dimensional analysis that superstring theory comes in modules of 10 dimensions. In this context it turns out that 2 of the 12 Universe dimensions form the toroidal surface of the Universe, and the other 10 turn into 4D-spacetime plus a fine fluid of 6d-SGC* particles that permeate the Universe.. So what happens to the 14 Metaverse dimensions. Again according to Occum's Razor we extract a 10d-module that is the blueprint for how the Universe forms a 4D-spacetime and 6d-SGC* particles. So the Metaverse also has a 4D-spacetime and a fluid of 6d-SGC* particles, according to Occum, which makes interaction between the cosmos and the meta-cosmos so much easier. That leaves 4 dimensions for the structure of the Metaverse corresponding to the 2 dimensions that formed the torus that is the Universe. Again and again Occum Rules. The structure of the Metaverse is Cartesian. The conjecture is that the 4D-meta-structure includes a 3D-space corresponding to the Metaverse 3D-space at some nominal time that is fuzzy because of SRGR. But that slice of space is small compared to the total 4D-structure volume. Again invoking Occum, the 4th structure dimension is timelike. It is a space dimension containing a measure or scale of time going into the past. This 4th meta-dimension may be infinite in both the past and future. Or according to Luria it may have a beginning, and perhaps even an end. Furthermore the conjecture is that the results of every physical particle interaction (in the Metaverse including in each embedded universe) is recorded. Nature has a memory. Not known what Occum thinks about that. Richard Ruquist1448 *SGC: String Gas Cosmology (Brandenberger http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3247) ? Looks like the thunderous silence of Vimalakirti :) Bruno On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance that made it stand out as not just another dream. A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge, we can undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the different logics between the individual, the collective, and
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Dream better, please. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, Apr 9, 2014 9:55 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 9:55:08 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) No, we can't smuggle in our real world experience of dreams affecting our behavior into the theoretical world that functionalism would allow. If we do, it's begging the question; we are saying in effect 'Music must have an effect on cars, since cars come with radios'. Music might make you drive your car faster or miss your exit, but that doesn't mean that music itself should be explained as arising from the manufacture of automobiles. If you look only at what a car requires, and are careful not to smuggle in what *your use* of a car includes, then we can see that evolution can only really account for physiological behaviors, not subjectivity. All subjective experiences could and would be replaced by unconscious automation in a purely biological view of life. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Lucid dreaming is nothing that I have ever attempted or learned much about. I hear some people work for it. My dream is for human survival, which isn't being properly addressed, but I am a sub-micron (sub-sub) in the scheme of things, as is proper. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 6:57 am Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day- dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring control habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a big dream. It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:09, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics Richard: I do that all the time. Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument, like when people say it is obvious that ..., or God told me..., etc. My bad. I thought you meant personal experience I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal second hand experience.Here is an example: I usually forget to mention that the existence of a Metaverse is motivated by its solution of the hierarchy problem in the Standard Model where the force of gravity is small compared to any of the 3 gauge forces. The hypothesis is that gravity is free to propagate in the Metaverse, but the gauge forces are confined to the brane of the Universe. Harvard Physics Professor Lisa Randall was the leading investigator that established the need for a Metaverse. I have heard about this. It is seducing, but as a non expert I have no means to judge the plausibility. A theory for the properties of the Metaverse may be found by Dimensional Analysis, even simpler than what I learned as an undergrad mech engr major. Occum's Razor dictates that we start from a total of 26 dimensions. Really? is it not 0?(like in comp). Or at least 24, Ramanujan favorite number! Why 24 + 2? Following some theoretical results derived from string theory, we split those dimensions into 12 for the Universe and 14 for the Metaverse. We factor into this dimensional analysis that superstring theory comes in modules of 10 dimensions. In this context it turns out that 2 of the 12 Universe dimensions form the toroidal surface of the Universe, and the other 10 turn into 4D-spacetime plus a fine fluid of 6d-SGC* particles that permeate the Universe.. So what happens to the 14 Metaverse dimensions. Again according to Occum's Razor we extract a 10d-module that is the blueprint for how the Universe forms a 4D-spacetime and 6d-SGC* particles. So the Metaverse also has a 4D-spacetime and a fluid of 6d-SGC* particles, according to Occum, which makes interaction between the cosmos and the meta-cosmos so much easier. That leaves 4 dimensions for the structure of the Metaverse corresponding to the 2 dimensions that formed the torus that is the Universe. Again and again Occum Rules. The structure of the Metaverse is Cartesian. The conjecture is that the 4D-meta-structure includes a 3D-space corresponding to the Metaverse 3D-space at some nominal time that is fuzzy because of SRGR. But that slice of space is small compared to the total 4D-structure volume. Again invoking Occum, the 4th structure dimension is timelike. It is a space dimension containing a measure or scale of time going into the past. This 4th meta-dimension may be infinite in both the past and future. Or according to Luria it may have a beginning, and perhaps even an end. Furthermore the conjecture is that the results of every physical particle interaction (in the Metaverse including in each embedded universe) is recorded. Nature has a memory. Not known what Occum thinks about that. Richard Ruquist1448 *SGC: String Gas Cosmology (Brandenberger http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3247) I read it but quickly stumble on many things ... as you know I come from the other end. Also, when I read that literature, I ask myself even more why you seem to want a collapse or a unique reality. String theory seems to make this worse, it seems to me, like getting a 10^500 type of multiverses, with comp, I think it can be three types of multiverse/mulltidream, being naive on the material arithmetical hypostases. The advantage of the classical comp approach, is that we can see (mathematically) why the truth always expands the modalities, and this still obeying laws. We get natural candidates for machine quanta and qualia, with a non trivial, but arithmetically complete (at the propositional level) theories. The quanta part is testable. And I don't think string theory would be a problem for meeting comp's consequences, unless you introduce some ad hoc self-selection principle. String theory smells number theory. It is consistent with my hobby (non professional) hope (not uncommon) that the zero of the Riemann zeta function describes the spectrum of some universal quantum chaotic operator, perhaps operating on some gas of strings. I don't insist on this because I don't want the number theorists finding physics before the theologians. If that happens we might get one or two
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Interesting, Professor Marchal. From what I have read some lucid dreamers can actually feel the metal top of a car, or the feel of a wooden fence as the dream 'walks' by. Plus, the dreamer knows he is dreaming. There is a California university psychologist who teaches his students how to get themselves to dream,lucidly. The psychologist believes that all the biblical visions of the Bible were all, in fact, lucid dreams. It's fascinating and the thought comes to mind (my mind) that it's all a solipsism. My question then, would be, who is the dreamer? -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 12:34 pm Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 Apr 2014, at 12:57, LizR wrote: On 10 April 2014 22:54, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Dream better, please. Controlling your dreams is a whole new ballgame, or so I've been led to believe. My feeling is that controlling is a nuisance for lucidity, or even just the quality of a dream. The lucid dream can become like a day-dream fantasy if you let yourself take the whole control. You can develop easily typical recurring control habits. It took me many years to no more fly in lucid dreams, and just walk and get on with the dream. I would say that on the contrary, the more you abandon control, the more big is the chance to be unexpectedly surprised and led to a big dream. It is similar with some psychotropics, and perhaps with life, and ... (of course!) computer science, where universality entails partial control only (if your remember the proof?). Is it a new ballgame? The French and Dutch wrote quite impressive books on lucid dreams in the 19th century, but before Jouvet, Hearne, LaBerge, Dement, etc. that was out the domain of science (for bad reasons). Dreams constitutes the royal path to metaphysics and doubt. The indian yoga vasistha, like the whole platonism (in my opinion) is based on that idea. It is easy to become lucid in one dream, but it can be hard, if not impossible, to *remain* lucid in the many dreams. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 11 April 2014 02:17, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 9:55:08 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) No, we can't smuggle in our real world experience of dreams affecting our behavior into the theoretical world that functionalism would allow. If we do, it's begging the question; we are saying in effect 'Music must have an effect on cars, since cars come with radios'. Music might make you drive your car faster or miss your exit, but that doesn't mean that music itself should be explained as arising from the manufacture of automobiles. If you look only at what a car requires, and are careful not to smuggle in what *your use* of a car includes, then we can see that evolution can only really account for physiological behaviors, not subjectivity. All subjective experiences could and would be replaced by unconscious automation in a purely biological view of life. Fine, so a counter example is dismissed as smuggling in because you don't like it. When I use a word it means what I want it to mean... ffs. If that's your idea of a reasonable response, excuse me while I put you on my ignore list. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Apr 2014, at 11:09, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 20:12, Richard Ruquist wrote: Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics Richard: I do that all the time. Where? I am not sure you ever did this. I am not talking on the personal 1p reference which influences our choice of axioms for example, but on the use of the personal reference in an argument, like when people say it is obvious that ..., or God told me..., etc. My bad. I thought you meant personal experience I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal second hand experience.Here is an example: I usually forget to mention that the existence of a Metaverse is motivated by its solution of the hierarchy problem in the Standard Model where the force of gravity is small compared to any of the 3 gauge forces. The hypothesis is that gravity is free to propagate in the Metaverse, but the gauge forces are confined to the brane of the Universe. Harvard Physics Professor Lisa Randall was the leading investigator that established the need for a Metaverse. I have heard about this. It is seducing, but as a non expert I have no means to judge the plausibility. A theory for the properties of the Metaverse may be found by Dimensional Analysis, even simpler than what I learned as an undergrad mech engr major. Occum's Razor dictates that we start from a total of 26 dimensions. Really? is it not 0?(like in comp). Or at least 24, Ramanujan favorite number! Why 24 + 2? The 2 extra dimensions are timelike. Therefore Ramanujan's 24 applies to only the space dimensions. I have always thought that this may mean that in 4D-spacetime, the time dimensions are fundamentally different from the space dimensions, Richard Following some theoretical results derived from string theory, we split those dimensions into 12 for the Universe and 14 for the Metaverse. We factor into this dimensional analysis that superstring theory comes in modules of 10 dimensions. In this context it turns out that 2 of the 12 Universe dimensions form the toroidal surface of the Universe, and the other 10 turn into 4D-spacetime plus a fine fluid of 6d-SGC* particles that permeate the Universe.. So what happens to the 14 Metaverse dimensions. Again according to Occum's Razor we extract a 10d-module that is the blueprint for how the Universe forms a 4D-spacetime and 6d-SGC* particles. So the Metaverse also has a 4D-spacetime and a fluid of 6d-SGC* particles, according to Occum, which makes interaction between the cosmos and the meta-cosmos so much easier. That leaves 4 dimensions for the structure of the Metaverse corresponding to the 2 dimensions that formed the torus that is the Universe. Again and again Occum Rules. The structure of the Metaverse is Cartesian. The conjecture is that the 4D-meta-structure includes a 3D-space corresponding to the Metaverse 3D-space at some nominal time that is fuzzy because of SRGR. But that slice of space is small compared to the total 4D-structure volume. Again invoking Occum, the 4th structure dimension is timelike. It is a space dimension containing a measure or scale of time going into the past. This 4th meta-dimension may be infinite in both the past and future. Or according to Luria it may have a beginning, and perhaps even an end. Furthermore the conjecture is that the results of every physical particle interaction (in the Metaverse including in each embedded universe) is recorded. Nature has a memory. Not known what Occum thinks about that. Richard Ruquist1448 *SGC: String Gas Cosmology (Brandenberger http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3247) I read it but quickly stumble on many things ... as you know I come from the other end. Also, when I read that literature, I ask myself even more why you seem to want a collapse or a unique reality. String theory seems to make this worse, it seems to me, like getting a 10^500 type of multiverses, with comp, I think it can be three types of multiverse/mulltidream, being naive on the material arithmetical hypostases. The advantage of the classical comp approach, is that we can see (mathematically) why the truth always expands the modalities, and this still obeying laws. We get natural candidates for machine quanta and qualia, with a non trivial, but arithmetically complete (at the propositional level) theories. The quanta part is testable. And I don't think string theory would be a problem for meeting comp's consequences, unless you introduce some ad hoc self-selection principle. String theory smells number theory. It is consistent with my hobby (non professional) hope (not uncommon) that the zero of the Riemann zeta
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:51:40 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 11 April 2014 02:17, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 9:55:08 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) No, we can't smuggle in our real world experience of dreams affecting our behavior into the theoretical world that functionalism would allow. If we do, it's begging the question; we are saying in effect 'Music must have an effect on cars, since cars come with radios'. Music might make you drive your car faster or miss your exit, but that doesn't mean that music itself should be explained as arising from the manufacture of automobiles. If you look only at what a car requires, and are careful not to smuggle in what *your use* of a car includes, then we can see that evolution can only really account for physiological behaviors, not subjectivity. All subjective experiences could and would be replaced by unconscious automation in a purely biological view of life. Fine, so a counter example is dismissed as smuggling in because you don't like it. When I use a word it means what I want it to mean... ffs. If that's your idea of a reasonable response, excuse me while I put you on my ignore list. You're projecting your refusal to be wrong on to me. My example stands. It has nothing to do with what I like, it just makes more sense. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 08 Apr 2014, at 18:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Since the work by Jouvet, LaBerge, Dement, Hobson and others, we have strong evidences that the brain activity, corresponding to some action in a (REM) dream, match the brain activity when that action is performed when awake. That is the reason why a cat performs the dream activity when Jouvet disabled the brain natural inhibition of the muscles during the dream. Dreaming is a wakening state, with hallucination, and paralysis of the muscles (so that we stay in bed!). Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:51:13 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Sorry old chap could you clarify Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:51:13 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Sorry old chap could you clarify Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. How do you know that? It's plausible that they play a role in training for future scenarios, for example. I'm not discounting that there might be more to it than that -- I am fascinated by dreams too -- but to claim that they are irrelevant to behavior seems quite a stretch. Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Bruno: as long as you never try to use a reference to an experience to beg a question in metaphysics Richard: I do that all the time. I actually attempt to find forms in the rich physics of string theory that result in a metaphysics that explains personal second hand experience.Here is an example: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Apr 2014, at 03:18, Pierz wrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance that made it stand out as not just another dream. A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. Yes, and admitting mechanism and the classical theory of knowledge, we can undersatnd that the machine are already confronted to the different logics between the individual, the collective, and also the difference between the provable, the knowable, the observable. For a long time, science did not believe in lucid dreams - it took some rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. The first doing an experience showing their verifiable existence was a parapsychologist, and he published in a review of parapsychology, which was of course ignored, probably for that reason, by the mainstream. But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could know it long before scientific method could catch up. Yes. And I can imagine that the ocular motor neurons would have been inhibited too, and the lucid dream would have stayed ... in parapsychology. Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that is sometimes both rational OK. and correct That is ambiguous. to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific evidence. The scientific evidence is always theory dependent, and all theories are false, at different degrees, so, well, it is certainly sound to entertain beliefs outside the scientific evidence. And 1500 times so in fields where we tolerate the authoritative argument, like theology or health to give two examples. I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind. But how to measure such qualia? (And this is not to say that there aren't also many cases where a true coincidence is taken for more than that - maybe Liz's experience is an example, we cannot know.) No, we cannot know. We can experience with mind altering substance, but we are automatically biased by our own theories. The similarity in the reports still provide information, but it is hard to interpretet and quite theory
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:51:13 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Sorry old chap could you clarify Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. How do you know that? It's plausible that they play a role in training for future scenarios, for example. I'm not discounting that there might be more to it than that -- I am fascinated by dreams too -- but to claim that they are irrelevant to behavior seems quite a stretch. We could always invent a justification for them, but I don't think that we have to. There is no reason that any experience within consciousness better explains some behavior than would an unconscious mechanism explanation. Craig I Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: My scepticism took a small knock today
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 6:55 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On 10 April 2014 04:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Dreams need not have any possible evolutionary justification, since their presence or absence is irrelevant to behavior. My dream caused this thread to come into existence, and you to make the statement quoted above. Hence you have refuted yourself thus! :-) Nice. And as has been pointed out (on this thread) a hypothesis exists that at least in part dreams seem to play an evolutionary role. Running through threat scenarios in a safe manner – the body in dream state is normally functionally paralyzed. Bad dreams especially, often are – according to this hypothesis -- preparing the individual for life’s more deadly confrontations. So that when and if the animal is faced with that kind of situation they have the advantage of memories (whether conscious or not) experienced in the dream state. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream diary, but dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the possibly convincing clues will be in the details. That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. Although I'm agnostic on the comp question, it seems to me to be not at all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not being agnostic!). Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1, or Z1*, or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do in the modal or math thread. I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous is knocking! The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being open to it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with x being used for the logics above, I could argue that the honest introspective machine can hardly miss it, but it is not well seen in our culture, as most people referring to it have been called heretics and banished or worst, for a long time. We are just not modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid. Bruno On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. It is also of notice that there is a common misconception that modern evolutionary theory predicts that all features or behaviours of organisms necessarily correspond to some adaptation. This ignores genetic drift: neutral mutations can generate features and behaviours that simply don't have a significant disadvantage, also possibly as a side effect of lack of modularity + some other adaptation. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 9 April 2014 04:58, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 11:03:35 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. Sure, but mechanisms which have an effect on the world of the body need not have an impact on something that doesn't (like dreams). Sorry old chap could you clarify -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 6:07:02 PM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Apr 2014, at 04:29, Pierz wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. Nice premonitory dreams. But one case is not a statistics, so it is hard to infer something, even if your 1p feels the contrary understandably. Of course. The obvious argument is that if you take enough dreams... However, this dream had a particular intensity and feeling of importance that made it stand out as not just another dream. A Big Dream in other words. This subjective impression proves nothing of course, but strengthens my personal conviction. Different standards of evidence and different epistemologies necessarily apply to the individual and the collective. For a long time, science did not believe in lucid dreams - it took some rigorous and repeatable laboratory studies to prove the phenomenon. But anyone who has had a lucid dream simply knows they happen, and could know it long before scientific method could catch up. Certainly one should expose one's own beliefs to critical scrutiny, including the possibility of coincidence in this case, but my point is that is sometimes both rational and correct to entertain beliefs outside of the established body of scientific evidence. I think that is especially the case in the area of these boundary experiences of human consciousness which seem inextricably bound up with meaning, and therefore extremely difficult to replicate. For example the well-known phenomenon of people experiencing strange phenomena at the moment of a loved one's death at some other location. There are some well-documented historical examples of this, but a scientific study would be extremely hard to carry out - you could take thousands of subjects and ask them about any experiences they had at the time of a relative's death, but the results would always be subject to doubt as a mere collection of anecdotes. Feynman of course tells the story of suddenly thinking of his grandmother, and then nothing happening to her! - and notes how, if she had died, he could have been tempted to take this experience for clairvoyance, but instead he forgot about it - or would have if he hadn't thought about the implications. But what he doesn't say is whether this thought of his grandmother was particularly forceful, strange or compelling. What usually convinces people that an experience is more than just coincidence is this compelling quality - as in my dream, it's not experienced as just another thought in the random, fleeting play of the mind. But how to measure such qualia? (And this is not to say that there aren't also many cases where a true coincidence is taken for more than that - maybe Liz's experience is an example, we cannot know.) It would be nice to make a pool on all people having a dream diary, but dreams of catastrophes are not so rare, and the possibly convincing clues will be in the details. That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. Although I'm agnostic on the comp question, it seems to me to be not at all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). I am agnostic on comp too, to be sure. (Well, comp precludes not being agnostic!). Comp (+ Theaetetus) precludes any physics not given by the S4Grz1, or Z1*, or X1* logics. So we have to do the math, as I try to do in the modal or math thread. Question: and is any physics not precluded compulsory? It seems to me it must be. I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous is knocking! The numinous knocks all the time, it is just a question of being open to it, I think. By the gap between the x and x* logics, with x being used for the logics above, I could argue that the honest introspective machine can hardly miss it, but it is not well seen in our culture, as most people referring to it have been called heretics and banished or worst, for a long time. We are just not modern, nor rational about it, I'm afraid. I completely agree. But sometimes, at least from a Jungian perspective, it knocks louder. And when it gets loud enough, failure to open the door can
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 07 Apr 2014, at 12:20, Kim Jones wrote: On 7 Apr 2014, at 6:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I can't open the page http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html because the server where this page is located isn't responding. Well, that's what my browser said. Is it only me? Bruno I was able to get it from that same link OK, I will try again. OK, I got it too. The server was probably idle for a moment. Thanks for telling me. Kim -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 3:42:10 PM UTC-4, Kim Jones wrote: On 6 Apr 2014, at 2:23 am, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Exactly. At this point, I think that the reluctance to admit the reality of this phenomenon no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt. Certainly we would want to be open to other explanations, but I see no reason to seriously entertain the prejudiced views which insist that our naive partitioning of 'now' happens to be a universal constant. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimj...@ozemail.com.au javascript: kmjc...@icloud.com javascript: Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com *Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:44 AM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. We would have to factor in the possibility that a bias toward coincidence (in subjects, scientists, or even the public) could alter the results. To seriously consider consciousness the fundamental phenomenon, we must expect that matters which could potentially define consciousness itself one way or another would be suppressed by occult means. If the universe is made of bias, we cannot expect it to play by the rules that it uses to keep us guessing. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:13:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Apr 2014, at 07:13, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. I thought making precognitive dreams, and that is one of the reason why I decide to have a dream diary. I continued to have such dreams, but the diary made me realize that in mot case, that was more a type of déjà-vu phenomenon, the predicted events occurs before the dreams. So this can be judged only from massive amount of case, with the dream being dated, and the pre-seen event too, and I have never found such data. Your methods may be altering the results though. If you try to objectify meta-phenomenal experiences, they begin to reflect back the kind of attention you are employing and are reduced to whatever coincidental/insignificant form that will reinforce the prejudice. Craig So I am not sure if there are serious evidences, which of course, by itself, does not refute the precognition theory. Bruno Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: : On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. Although I'm agnostic on the comp question, it seems to me to be not at all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous is knocking! On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Wow. I'm going to have to read that article posted earlier on this thread when I get time (I tried to print it but the printer here at work is out of toner :( This is more the sort of response I was hoping for (for or against). On 8 April 2014 14:29, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote: I used to keep a dream diary Liz, and one day when I was looking back through my old dreams, I came across this, from October 1998: I am in with a crowd of people in some kind of tall building in what I think is New York. It's one of two similar buildings. We are looking out the window when I see a kind of sliver wave moving across the city, like the ripple left behind by a dorsal fin. When it hits the building, it's like being stabbed with a knife. The building starts to wave from side to side like it's about to fall. I wake up with the words: 'we all must experience terror'. That freaked me out. That's the most powerful example, but I've become convinced of this synchronicity between dreams and the outer world. Although I'm agnostic on the comp question, it seems to me to be not at all precluded by comp (though the question might be: what *would be* precluded by comp? It seems to permit much more than it precludes). I think Jung would see in your dream/synchronicity not the intervention of a deity, but an invitation to go beyond your rational self. The numinous is knocking! On Saturday, April 5, 2014 9:00:09 AM UTC+11, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 6 April 2014 18:45, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). That's possible, but I don't rate it as likely, because we live in a short cul-de-sac that leads to a small beach, and our house is set in what used to be someone's back garden. So we are surrounded by the backs of other houses - I can't see the fronts of any of the surrounding houses, or even see the road itself, since we have a long driveway and there are trees and a large hedge in the way. So it's almost impossible for me to see anyone visiting houses in the neighbourhood. Also, it's a short road, and leads nowhere, so it wouldn't take anything like a day to visit every house. So it wouldn't be *easy* for me to spot any visitors to the area - but it's certainly possible (and I went out a couple of times during the day, so I could have seen someone then). But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. That makes sense, certainly. (And I probably regard people with the Watchtower as a threat...!) And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) Good job! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 8 April 2014 09:41, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday, April 7, 2014 4:38:42 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 2014-04-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com: On Sunday, April 6, 2014 2:45:35 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). These kinds of dismissals are not scientific. When you have a genuinely precognitive experience, you would really have to bend over backward to mistake it for anything else. If you say so... But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. You could just as easily say that dreams are in order to confuse us so that we will be unprepared for possible threats to weed out the more easily confused members of the species. Just-so stories are fun to make up, but we shouldn't take them seriously. You could as easily say it as well that plants are aliens. and Craig is the father of Dark Vader. Yes . You can say so. But it is not something based on the theory of evolution, that is, natural selection and evolutionary biology. What I'm saying though is that the theory of evolution can be used to advance or deny any position on dreams that we care to take. It's all reverse engineered story telling. There is an element of this in all evolutionary explanations, but only until we are in a position to gather enough evidence to make a call for or against some idea. Evolution has been observed in action, to a limited extent, and the links between genes and various behaviours, structures etc is becoming clearer, so we have a better idea as time goes on what mechanisms have evolved and why. For example I recently read something about zebra's stripes being for protecting them from insects (I think it was) rather than making them harder for carnivores to spot. This was because someone had done some experiments to distinguish between several theories of what advantage the stripes gave. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Probably you saw people visiting houses in your neighbourhood, but that did not reached consciousnees you were busy thinking about other things. (I will not insert here these funny videos of people failing to recognize a bear in the middle of a scene). But according with a theory of evolutionary psychology, dreams are in order to be prepared for possible threats specially the most dangerous ones. The material of the dreams is taken from past events, and the subconscious takes into account not only the things that were you conscious of, but everithing. And maybe, sometimes the elaborative mechanism of the dreams does work very well. In some sense it is precognitive. That is in order to protect your sacred skepticism ;) 2014-04-06 7:13 GMT+02:00, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 06 Apr 2014, at 07:13, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. I thought making precognitive dreams, and that is one of the reason why I decide to have a dream diary. I continued to have such dreams, but the diary made me realize that in mot case, that was more a type of déjà-vu phenomenon, the predicted events occurs before the dreams. So this can be judged only from massive amount of case, with the dream being dated, and the pre-seen event too, and I have never found such data. So I am not sure if there are serious evidences, which of course, by itself, does not refute the precognition theory. Bruno Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 05 Apr 2014, at 12:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Indeed. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. Yes, Liz could have seen those guy doing their work, without noticing it consciously, but generating subconsciously a warning of their arrival. But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. Looks like a movie by Bergman, or Delvaux ... :) Bruno Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 5 April 2014 23:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Yes, I realise that. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. If I realised a religious person was going to turn up several hours later, that sounds rather ... clairvoyant! But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. That is, however, quite common. My dream was a one off and the guy was a one-in-several-years. (Do the maths! :) Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
Boris Iskatov has derived a Quantum Information Theory from Dirac Eq. based on reality being (in part) a gas of microleptons (which is consistent with Brandenburger's String Gas Cosmology) That predicts that weak signals/information can leak back from the future and the past. His theory is not available in English. I discuss it in this paper: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/DarkMatt.html On a personal note I had the pleasure of riding next to Boris on a bus from Orlando to the Kennedy Ctr when I was under contract to the CIA to talk to Soviet scientists. We talked about religion, a common ground, and a bit of his theory. That was in the late 1970s. Richard On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 7:11 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 5 April 2014 23:44, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Yes, I realise that. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. If I realised a religious person was going to turn up several hours later, that sounds rather ... clairvoyant! But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. That is, however, quite common. My dream was a one off and the guy was a one-in-several-years. (Do the maths! :) Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: My scepticism took a small knock today
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) the bite of your irony attempts to leap, but fails to meet the bar 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
It is not irony. It is sarcasm. Although this message has been produced with 100% recycled electrons, I can´t indulge chatting in threads like this since it causes constant yawning on me and that increases my carbon footprint. Sorry 2014-04-05 10:27 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alberto G. Corona There must be a pact of non aggression among sects in your neighborhood that your sect of planet saviors has signed with the rest of them. has been Al Gore there lately? ;) the bite of your irony attempts to leap, but fails to meet the bar 2014-04-05 7:02 GMT+02:00, Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com: From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response - even if from a dream - no thanks, we don't indulge Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? A boring explanation for this sort of thing is that the set of possible coincidences is so large that it is likely that we find one once in a while. Another one is that our brain is so good at detecting patterns that we realize subconsciously that something is likely to happen, by pinking on subtle clues from the environment. But of course, who knows? My favourite personal experience: once I was bored waiting on the subway station. I entertained myself by imagining a mysterious story that involved empty trains passing by the station without stopping, with the lights turned off. The next train passed by without stopping, with the lights turned off. Telmo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Saturday, April 5, 2014 1:35:26 AM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 5 April 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I took notice of it because it was quite an unusual and memorable dream Right, that's why it was already a pattern. Being unusual and memorable is a kind of coincidence in itself. Your personal awareness is being alerted that there is something to notice that may be clarified later. - not so much the detail about the guy being a bible basher (although that was unusual) but some of the attendant details - odd features that made me tell Charles about it as soon as I woke up. Yes, it's not about the contents of the dream as much as the alignment of the dream with future reality. It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now, and reflecting back to you that you consider that kind of thing an intrusion. Not that I'm a dream expert, it could mean something else, I'm just going by my experience with synchronicity. The fact that you told Charles about it too can be considered even another coincidence, as far as it being something that you chose to do in response to the dream instead of doing nothing and forgetting about it. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 6 Apr 2014, at 2:23 am, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's just showing you that your awareness extends beyond your personal definition of here and now Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL Email: kimjo...@ozemail.com.au kmjco...@icloud.com Mobile: 0450 963 719 Phone: 02 93894239 Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com Never let your schooling get in the way of your education - Mark Twain -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 05:42:10AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: Finally you got to it. It was a precognitive dream. I have had many, an enormous number throughout my life in fact, so I don't think we need to beat about the bush here. Some dreams foretell or synchronistically coincide with near-future events (usually cloaked in some symbolic representation). Period. Jung certainly thought so. We cannot explain this away. Not sure about that. It's happened maybe 2-3 times to me in my whole life. I would call that rate coincidence. Not statistically significant. YMMV :). Also, presumably by chance, some people's rate of precognitive dreams would be much higher, just like some people are more accident prone than others. Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: My scepticism took a small knock today
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 7:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: My scepticism took a small knock today On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. Love that response – even if from a dream – “no thanks, we don’t indulge”…. Perfect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. I must be on some national evangelical do not visit list, because when I see the little groups of salvation sellers come around they knock on all the houses except mine. I keep waiting, but instead I see them look down at their database generated no go list and move on. A strange mix of technology in the service of medievalism. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: My scepticism took a small knock today
On 5 April 2014 15:10, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:00:09 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: Last night just before I woke up I had a dream about a guy coming to the door selling religion, so to speak - the details were a bit weird, as in most dreams, but that was the gist of it - I sent him away, saying no thanks we don't indulge or words to that effect. I've never had a dream of that sort, at least not that I can recall. A few minutes ago, for the first time since we've been in this house (1 and a half years) - indeed the first time in a lot longer than that - a guy came to the door with a copy of the Watchtower and a personal message from God. I sent him away, but ... I was a bit shaken. Charles also had a weird recurring dream for several years about a situation he has now found himself in, to do with work, which has freaked him out a bit, although his makes more sense as a worry dream. Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... isn't it? Personally I think that you have to add in the fact that you took notice of the happenstance, so already it was a potential coincidence. By the time it recurs, it is slightly more than a coincidence. What does it mean? I think not much but it offers a glimpse into the larger nature of time as rooted in experience rather than physics. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I took notice of it because it was quite an unusual and memorable dream - not so much the detail about the guy being a bible basher (although that was unusual) but some of the attendant details - odd features that made me tell Charles about it as soon as I woke up. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
