Synchronized Fluctuations of the Dreamtime World, Part 2

[hvw]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on dreams! They were interesting, and not at all surprising. Birds of a feather and all that.

Comments

[wbenetti]

I've been thinking about spirituality, and I've been considering the possibility that quantum mechanics can explain how things work. Dan Simmons described the soul in terms of quantum phenomena, and it got me thinking.

Given that we're at our infancy in understanding that particular branch of science, I'd say we may never know in our lifetimes if my guess is true. Well, maybe I will if I change state or something ;)

Ordinarily I don't combine the oil and water of science and spirituality, but maybe there is a chance that they are two sides of the same coin.

Then again, maybe I'm just yelling "quantum!" whenever I can't explain something.

[theantichrist]

Well as soon as you start talking like fucking quantum entanglement 'n shit, it's hard to ignore at least the possibility, no doubt.

[leesalogic]

I went to a lecture once where the speaker was proposing a both/and approach to things we normally categorize as either/or. I don't remember the specifics, but I left thinking that there is a way to understand things as both science and spirituality. Through that philosophy, and while I probably tend toward agnostic, I have pretty strong scientific pantheists leanings, which basically means the universe is divine--and thus all that exist within it--though not necessarily all-knowing. My point being that the fact there's a universe and that we exist in it is fucking amazing. But I'm also amazed that someone somewhere actually figured out how to make bread, which brought forth the concept of not only a recipe, but the understanding we could mix all these solids, make them in a liquid, then heat them up to make a completely different solid that was tasty

[wbenetti]

Yeah, just some warning. Simmons is very, very, long winded. He's got some cool concepts, but his books take a long time to plow through. I recommend starting with Hyperion and moving on to Endymion.

Basically, if Simmons had an editor, he'd be my favorite Sci-Fi author of all time.

[theantichrist]

The whole using dreams as a dry run for future excursions thing definitely isn't my own theory. I heard it on NPR, as they say. I think it was NPR. Anyway it goes back to my thing about generally trusting in the people who seem to know a lot more than I do about a given subject (and, of course, being as sure as possible that they aren't a lobbyist or some sort of crazy biased issues pusher

[leesalogic]

I completely believe this is one role our dreams/subconscious plays. I am a lucid dreamer (though not as actively able/willing to change things in situ as I used to be) and I've experienced this myself. I've had two days of dreaming a particular scenario that's been upsetting me (which I won't detail) but it's helped me understand my own anxiety of incidents, but more importantly, teaches me that even though if this worst case scenario happened, I'd be OK (I'd just need to, I don't know, move to Africa and never see any of my friends again--or something like that

[theantichrist]

Jesus. Your subconscious sounds like a right cunt. BTW I dunno what this "worst-case scenario" is that makes you move to Africa and avoid us, but I have to say unless we become Africa-fearing vampires or something, your plan may need some work.

We'll get you!

Two things

[maroonmd]

First, I absolutely believe that you had this experience. Second, there's no way to confirm or deny your experience using scientific measures. This poses a problem

Re: Two things

[hvw]

Hmm, I probably haven't expressed my position very well, then, because I don't buy the binary view of science vs. nature, either. Not only CAN spirituality be explained to some degree by science (ie, nuns brainscanned showing particular brain centers active during spiritual experiences), I also *don't* believe that science can explain everything. I also don't believe that if science can't explain it, it's not fact.

I think some of what people explain away as spiritual (the making up whatever crap position) stems from a discomfort with the idea that, in fact, we are NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT AT ALL. That really tweaks some noodles.

All of which is a long winded way of saying, not only am I hypo-spiritual, but I also haven't taken Science as my religion.

Are we at all in the same neck of the woods here? Or did I miss your point?

Re: Two things

[maroonmd]

I think so? I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm perfectly fine with saying "I don't know" or "we don't know (yet)." And I'm perfectly fine with discussing theories (as possibilities), based on what we do know. But I'm not okay with "It has not been defined, therefore it does not exist" nor "It clearly exists, so I'll make up a cause."

I think both of these standpoints stem from the "discomfort" you described above, and that really tweaks MY noodle!

But I think we differ semantically- "I also don't believe that if science can't explain it, it's not fact." Replace "it's not fact" with "it does not exist" and I'll agree. IMO- just because we have not proved something, does not mean that it does not exist. But just because it may exist, does not mean it is a fact.

Also, I do believe in the scientific method, I just don't subscribe to the general attitude of scientists. Part of the scientific method is trying to prove and disprove something that may exist. Denying the existence of the unknown, is counterintuitive, IMO.

Re: Two things

[hvw]

I think it's love!

We are TOTALLY like minded here. What you're describing (so-called scientists rejecting existence based on lack of "proof") is what I call the Religion of Science. You'd think knowing there's stuff they don't know would make them ragingly curious, instead of in denial.

Let's go beat up some scientists who don't believe in ghosts! LOL