Seriously my best advice is to study real physics from physics text books endorsed by major universities.

Most of your ideas are very wrong, or at least presented with no consistency to real physics terminology thus causing misstatements.

Yes I know. Physics has to do with physical reality. I believe that few scientists think about this stuff. I know some so.

I am not wrong about everything having a frequency and about humans even having their own frequency and about the inability to interact with anything outside of that range of frequency.

Physics or science has yet to explain how dreams, especially lucid dreams are created in the mind (brain) to include delusions of time and space.

You just have to think outside of the physical box. Use your imagination and logic. As long as you stay in that box you can't imagine anything else. You draw a boundary around everything when there are no boundaries. You try to measure, define and enclose infinity when infinity cannot be measured.

That is the way I see it. You may think it "dumb" but I see your thinking as confined within a very small box. You cannot imagine or believe in anything else except what you can define and enclose, measure or see. You are only human. You cannot see all that is, but you can imagine.

I am just saying there is more. Much more. But perhaps that does not interest some people to even think about. I can easily see why there must be more just by simple logic. People like you just dismiss these ideas as science fiction, or 'dumb' That's okay.

Imagination rules the world.

JB imagination is great, but does not = reality.

To determine the set of reality, from the set of imagination we must understand how to extend our data collection methods, to do that we have to create terms based on current knowledge and be rigorous in our definitions.

You sadly have no clue how to do that. I wish you well, but until you can do that you cannot participate with people who can, and have spent time learning to do so . . .

I know quite well what you consider to be REALITY and how you come to these conclusions. And I do know how to do all of that. I prefer to expand my thinking a little beyond that to things imagined and to other possibilities. I'm sorry if that frustrates you.

And I can "participate" with people inside of the box of physical reality. (I do it every day.) I have a creative side and a practical side. I like to share my creative side in the hope of finding people who have imagination and vision.

You are probably not one of them so never mind me. I'm sure probably have a good psychological reason for your journey and your intention to nail down what is real and what isn't. I don't make any sense to you. You think I am dumb. Such as life and oh well. I wish you well to.

No you really cant.

You cannot participate in a scientific conversation if you do not even understand the terms.

This is basic. You cannot have a conversation about complex things when you use loose terminology and steal words and transpose meanings.

No you can't understand my terms or my ideas. You are steeped in your own dogma.

So keep patting yourself on the back for all your vast knowledge of science and physics and feel good about yourself. If that is where your happiness lies, then I will take my leave (again) and stop bothering you people.

Have a wonderful life.

I am not the one who goes thread to thread telling people how realty is a hologram and then will not be bothered to objectively explain the definition for hologram.


Yes I agree, I do not understand nearly anything you talk about, and its becuase you fail to use objective definitions and clear language. On your second point I disagree, critical thinking is by its very definition non dogmatic,the problem is when someone fails to grasp the basic precepts of how to attain real objective knowledge.

Word soup worked great on star track to give us the feeling of technology, but its useless in a non make believe setting.

I think what gets under my skin is that you throw out these terms, and expect us to try to understand how you mean to use them, instead of you trying to understand the common or scientific usage.

It seems very egotistical to expect other people to bend to your usage when many times its either a novel approach, or just completely inappropriate.

In science when a scientist knows he/she needs to use words in a novel way he/she will go out of his way to explain, the issue here is that he/she must first have a firm grasp on how the current usage is defined, then he/she can effectively explain the differences.

You do not have a firm understanding of the terms and thus get frustrated when questioned.

Its this:

Perhaps it is egoistical on my part.

But you do the same thing. You expect people to bend to your usage. Just because it is not 'novel' but 'old hat,' I guess you think that gives your usage more weight and authority than mine.

Then do you think you need to police the science and philosophy forum for anyone who does not stay within the strict guidelines of what you consider and judge to be "science and philosophy" and tell them that they can't or are too "dumb" to participate in these discussions because of whatever.... blah blah blah....etc.??

So why are you here? What is your purpose? What are you searching for? What do you get out of this mingle club and these forums? Is it not ego on your part that keeps you coming back? (Surely you don't expect to learn anything from any of these dumb people!) If you are here to teach them something, you might want to see if you can get paid to teach a class at your local community college. You might find more satisfaction in that.

Sure I could spend my life learning about science and physics but I'm just not all that interested in that. I find it interesting, but no so much that I would spend my life in that field. Leave it to people who can do something with it. Leave it to the brilliant ones. I am more interested in creativity and imagination, and ideas and spirituality and art.

There is no reason to get frustrated or upset by my ideas. I'm just throwing my thoughts out there. And thoughts are real, therefore they are truth. .

But enough. I have wasted too much time here today.

Its not "my" usage. Its science's.

To change it requires knowing where we move from, and why we move to . . .

I am upset by your reaction to a demand for consistency in communication. Your reaction seems to be to attack the person behind the argument if the argument is that you are not being objective, relevant, or concise.

Honestly I enjoy productive discussions. I have found many such productive discussions here on this board.


I attempt to have productive conversations with you, one would think that after having been burned over and over I would stop getting near the fire, but I was once just as inconsistent as you. And allowed my imagination to prop up my intellect, not a bad prop, but it can stand on its own and just hang out with Mr imagination.

A appreciate your attempts to have "productive conversations" with me, but I don't see how you have gotten burned. (I really don't understand that sentiment at all.)

Specifically, what I am looking for is a pragmatic scientific minded person (such as yourself) to explain to me how he thinks a person can create a three dimensional environment (world) complete with people and objects, and manifest his own dream body to inhabit this world, all inside of his mind (or brain) and then interact with it as if it were reality. In other words, dreaming. Specifically, lucid dreaming, where the person KNOWS THEY ARE DREAMING and knows that they created this environment.

And if this dream environment is or seems as real as this one that we live in here, (that you insist is real) tell me what the difference is to that dreamer and his world.

If this (his) dream environment is "mind stuff," then why is it such a leap to consider the idea that THIS REALITY is also mind stuff, except that we, don't realize that we are dreaming, and have collectively decided that this IS REAL simply because of its duration and the fact that we know of nothing else outside of this environment.


"Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake."* - Thoreau

Hi Jane, I see you are feeling frisky today!

And Jeromy has never even given me his thoughts on how we create entire worlds in three dimension complete with people, skies, mountains, houses and objects... in our dreams. He totally ignores the questions I pose that he does not know how to answer or address.

I still look for an answer to this question about dreams (from anyone) and how we create time and space within our minds. Most people will agree that the time and space we create in our dreams does not exist. It is just 'mind stuff.'

Further, if IN THIS, OUR SHARED REALITY, time does not exist then spacetime does not exist. It logically follows that the spacetime we see and experience IN THIS REALITY is also just 'mind stuff' created in our minds or within a collective or universal mind.

Perhaps the world is flat after all. LOL

Perhaps we create physical reality after all, collectively. If so, the implications of this are enormous! It puts new meaning on the "power of mind over matter" idea.

The title of this thread is "Thoughts of Existence and the present moment."

The present moment being all that truly exists. This thread then, is about the implications connected with the non-existence of time and space. (Spacetime) It is about our "three dimensional" reality, and it implies that dimensions and reality, (including physical reality) are all "mind stuff."

The difference between the reality of a lucid dream and the reality of this physical world involves a "group think," or a "group mind." (which is an agreement.)

Therefore what defines "physical" has to do with interaction and things that interact within the group mind and not things in an individual or single mind.

In another thread I said that I did not think that 'mind stuff' was "physical" as Jeromy was defining "physical." (Anything that interacts is "physical," he asserts.)

But while considering the nature of this reality being a group think or created by a universal mind, I think this 'physical stuff' is also 'mind stuff' in that sense. But "physical" defines the mind stuff within the group mind, and not within the single individual mind, as in lucid dreaming. So there is a distinction between dreams and this shared reality.

But all of it is 'mind stuff.'

Breathe slowly...empty your mind of all thought.... and enjoy


Nam-myo-ho-reng-gy-kyo

This is a very good honest post.

Thank you. These kinds of posts are why I keep trying JB. And me and you have had some very good and meaningful conversations.

Your questions seem to be philosophical in nature, not scientific.
I think for us to really continue we must make that distinction.

Science is a naturalistic methodological process of examining data and creating theories that explain phenomena. This requires rigorous definitions. Science is not easy, it takes time to understand why things are the way they are, I can tell you that something is the way it is, and then I get told well that is just from authority, but it is not from authority becuase you can be educated on each step of validating the physics, but this is no easy path . . . . so many people think they can understand the nature of reality by using short cuts .. . . well I hate to tell you, it does not work.

You want to understand reality??? . . . then let go of ALL of your preconceived notions, and take the time to study science from the ground up. This is seriously good advice for anyone that feels a desire to understand things at a fundamental level.

I advise first learning the basics of Chemistry.
Then physics.
Then study the brain if you want to answer your second question about how the brain create mental landscapes, if the first question on time, then keep going on physical and study relativity.
A few years of hard work and you will understand how the brain creates mental landscapes, or understand how spacetime effects our perceptions.

Philosophy is nearly useless to determine the finer details of reality. Its becuase logic only works with correct premises, and far too often we think we know how things are, when really we discover through science and mathematics they are anything but what we think them.

QM is a perfect example, and the straw man version that is used in all of JB's ideas (and nearly every other laymen) is a great example of how easy it is to take an idea and create a philosophical premise such as all things vibrate and thus interactions are based on frequency of vibrations at the quantum level.

This is wrong, but to explain why would be a waste of time if the person receiving the explanation is a laymen.

There is no way to explain this without using advanced mathematics. The reason is that it is NOT intuitive.

Many MANY things in science are non intuitive.

I really do not see why this is surprising to some people. I mean when someone goes to a car mechanic and knows very little formally about how all of the various parts of a car work, and then try to come up with causes of various mechanical failures effects and fail to realize what is going on there is really no surprise why this is so, we all know that what we do not know about we can be very wrong about when trying to create conclusions from flawed, missing or plain up wrong information.


--About your brain question, the simple answer I dont know. I have read about the mental landscape, but not the intricacies of function which it seems is what you want to know.

Again if this is a curiosity for you, I advise to get a good text book on the brain.

Here is a link, I have no idea how good these books are, not my field yet, but I certainly am very much considering switching majors to Nano tech in regards to Brain science.


http://www.findingdulcinea.com/guides/Science/Science-of-the-Brain.pg_05.html

If I do change majors here soon, then I will have a list of books to buy from professors and will post that . . .


__________________________________

Also I really wanted to say . . . . of all the topics we could talk about, you really have picked two of the MOST technically complicated that exist today . . .

Physics, and Neurology.

Unless of course this IS merely a philosophical conversation in which case I will bow out, becuase it will lead to dualism or solipsism which I find to be a useless philosophies that only lead to the conclusion that we cannot know about the nature of reality. Its essentially a cop out.

I think I will make a post about Materialism, physicalism vs metaphysics, dualism, and solipsism here in the near future where I explain my thoughts on these philosophies.

Seriously, I appreciate your suggestions, but I don't think a study of the brain will have the answers. If someone had the answer to this question It would be common knowledge by now. I don't know of any common knowledge about how we dream in three dimensions and enter that dream world and interact with it in a virtual reality.

Even conscious thoughts cannot create a new three dimensional space unless you enter the dream state.

I am not sure, but I think you think of the brain and the mind as one and the same. The mind and consciousness may not have anything to do with the brain except to use it just as it uses the rest of the body.

In a lucid dream the MIND manifests a dream body. This dream body normally has one head, two arms, two legs, etc. (humanoid) just as our "real" waking human body. I suppose if you got stuck inside a lucid dream you would soon become aware (or imagine) that your dream body had organs and a brain. But none of that is real is it? It's just a dream or some kind of projection of mind stuff.

So for me, logic follows that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. The brain does not create the mind, but the mind creates the brain (and body.) To me this makes sense and is logical, although hard to believe.

Your preconceived notions are getting in the way of trying.

I will find some good books for you and get back with you.

I am currently reading some interesting stuff about Pibram's findings about where memory is stored in the brain and how he thinks the brain is like a hologram in that memory is distributed throughout the brain rather than in specific areas.

The are not really preconceived notions they are just my thoughts and ideas. I am not married to them. The holographic model of reality does intrigue me and it does explain a lot of things that science has yet to explain.