24 Nov 05
I think the most powerful dreams happen during times of extreme stress.I think they give us an ability which is to add up past,present and 'future opportunities' displayed in a whole lot of weird and wonderful ways.This 'sense' is simply because the brain funtions different while asleep.When their are many worries so there are dreams!
24 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeIf we did not have senses, then we would never have dreams.
If we did not have senses, then we would never have dreams.
This is because we would not have any experiences to dream about.
You might as well not possess any sensory faculties.
After all, you choose to believe in the existence of something which you (and every-one else) has never experienced at all.
Not really. Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams* (naturally, there are studies which show the opposite as well - but if a person was born blind, how would he communicate visuals even if he did see them?)
This is because we would not have any experiences to dream about.
Dreams are not simply rehashings of waking experiences - there is a significant level of creativity in them as well†.
You might as well not possess any sensory faculties.
After all, you choose to believe in the existence of something which you (and every-one else) has never experienced at all.
1. I disagree with your assertion that no one has ever experienced that which I call God. Even if one discounts the theological differences between various religions, there is a very high correspondence of the experiences of the mystics, for instance (vistesd can furnish concrete examples here).
2. No one has ever directly experienced a black hole, but I'm sure you don't believe that they don't exist at all.
---
* http://www.afb.org/message_board_replies.asp?TopicID=638&FolderID=3
† http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/canvas.html
25 Nov 05
Originally posted by windmill>
I think the most powerful dreams happen during times of extreme stress.I think they give us an ability which is to add up past,present and 'future opportunities' displayed in a whole lot of weird and wonderful ways.This 'sense' is simply because the brain funtions different while asleep.When their are many worries so there are dreams!
25 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAfter all the stick the man gives Christians for apparently being "insane", he vanishes off the thread at the first sign of a serious philosophical discussion. Perhaps he's hoping for easier prey elsewhere.
[b]If we did not have senses, then we would never have dreams.
Not really. Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams* (naturally, there are studies which show the opposite as well - but if a person was born blind, how would he communicate visuals even if he did see them?)
Th ...[text shortened]... age_board_replies.asp?TopicID=638&FolderID=3
† http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/canvas.html[/b]
27 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams*"
[b]If we did not have senses, then we would never have dreams.
Not really. Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams* (naturally, there are studies which show the opposite as well - but if a person was born blind, how would he communicate visuals even if he did see them?)
Th ...[text shortened]... message_board_replies.asp?TopicID=638&FolderID=3
† http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/canvas.html
Perhaps they are synthesising their visions from other senses?
I still maintain that someone with no senses would have no dreams. You have not addressed this point, except with the glib "not really" comment.
"1. I disagree with your assertion that no one has ever experienced that which I call God. Even if one discounts the theological differences between various religions, there is a very high correspondence of the experiences of the mystics"
Quoting mystics as evidence of God is extremely weak. Mystics are all fakes you know. AC Clarke famously offered a million dollars in the 1970's to anyone who could demonstrate telekenesis, psychic ability, spoon bending, etc in his lab.
Guess what?
To date, not one person has even attempted his offer.
Enough said.
In theory, if anyone did experience a black hole, they could never tell us about it! In truth I am sceptical that they exist, and may well be an astronomer's tool to explain the universe.
27 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeePerhaps they are synthesising their visions from other senses?
"Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams*"
Perhaps they are synthesising their visions from other senses?
I still maintain that someone with no senses would have no dreams. You have not addressed this point, except with the glib "not really" comment.
"1. I disagree with your as ...[text shortened]... h I am sceptical that they exist, and may well be an astronomer's tool to explain the universe.
I still maintain that someone with no senses would have no dreams. You have not addressed this point, except with the glib "not really" comment.
On the contrary, it is you who have refused to address this point. I've pointed out scientific evidence to the contrary; all you've done is restate your opinion ("I still maintain" etc.)
Quoting mystics as evidence of God is extremely weak. Mystics are all fakes you know. AC Clarke famously offered a million dollars in the 1970's to anyone who could demonstrate telekenesis, psychic ability, spoon bending, etc in his lab.
Completely irrelevant to my point. I wasn't talking about "super powers" - I was talking about the spiritual experiences of the mystics.
Come back when you've done your homework.
27 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammervistesd can furnish concrete examples here
[b]If we did not have senses, then we would never have dreams.
Not really. Though not conclusive, some studies do indicate that congenitally blind people see visuals in their dreams* (naturally, there are studies which show the opposite as well - but if a person was born blind, how would he communicate visuals even if he did see them?)
Th ...[text shortened]... message_board_replies.asp?TopicID=638&FolderID=3
† http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov03/canvas.html
[/b][/i]Thanks! 😉
Let me define “mystical” experience broadly here, in terms that I think bbarr, for instance, might agree with: “the direct (unmediated by discursive thought) experience of the ineffable real ground of our being.”
For a Zen Buddhist, that ground might be called the tathata, “suchness” of reality. For an Advaita Vedantist, the oneness of Atman/Brahman (aham atma brahma). For the Taoist, the Tao. For a Jewish mystic the ein sof. For Meister Eckhart, the Godhead, or the Is-ness that is God. Out of those experiences come different descriptions—“maps,” if you will. Even mystics may argue about the accuracy of the different maps; but the point of the maps is ultimately efficacy, not accuracy. Thomas Merton, though a theist and a Trappist monk, felt quite at home with non-theistic Zen Buddhists such as D.T. Suzuki, even though when Suzuki used the word “God” in his writings he meant something totally different from the western theistic concept.
My “gem” metaphor again:
A priest I knew once said it is as if God (or the Tao, or Brahman, the ineffable real ground, etc.) were an immense, many-faceted gem—so immense that no one can see all the facets (even from the inside). The facets refract the (internal) light in many colors. Why should anyone of us assume that our perspective captures the whole of it; or that because another’s description from their perspective does not conform to ours, that their view is necessarily invalid; or that our perspective presents the best viewpoint for everyone? What we cannot see, we call mystery; sometimes the perspective from where someone else stands can shed some light on the mystery. That seems to be a viewpoint that the mystics of all the traditions share. They accept one another’s experiences as evidence, even though they may not accept the particular description that comes out of that experience—the terms in which the ineffable is rendered effable.
28 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer"I've pointed out scientific evidence to the contrary"
[b]Perhaps they are synthesising their visions from other senses?
I still maintain that someone with no senses would have no dreams. You have not addressed this point, except with the glib "not really" comment.
On the contrary, it is you who have refused to address this point. I've pointed out scientific evidence to the contrary; al ...[text shortened]... the spiritual experiences of the mystics.
Come back when you've done your homework.[/b]
No you haven't - where is your evidence about people with no sensory ability?
"I was talking about the spiritual experiences of the mystics."
With no examples - hardly compelling!
Anyway, this is all a red herring.
Your original point was that trusting your senses was a much to do with "blind faith" as belief in God.
This is a completely irrational claim, which if you truly believe it, demonstrates another aspect to your lack of sanity.
Let us consider the consequences of assuming you cannot trust your senses at all (1), and compare it to the consequence of not trusting your belief in God (2).
1. You are sitting in a chair in a room, alone. At least you could be, but you cannot be sure of what you see and you may be mistaken in feeling the chair around you. You dare not move in case the floor you think you see in front of you does not exist. You feel a pang of hunger (or do you?) and think you smell food cooking in the room, but of course this may not be true.
You remain seated, uncertain that any of this information reaching your brain is correct.
Eventually, you begin to get a dry throat (or do you?) and are gasping of thirst. Around this point you may well start to hallucinate and 'see' God.
Then you die of thirst.
2. You believe that God does not exist. You stop praying and going to church. You live your life to the full and die happy and fulfilled.
From these examples, it should be apparent that believing your senses cannot be trusted is more of a leap of faith, than trusting in them!
Indeed, the phrase "blind faith" describes a situation whereby you fail to utilise your sense of vision. Not when you doubt your vision to be accurate!
28 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeNo you haven't - where is your evidence about people with no sensory ability?
"I've pointed out scientific evidence to the contrary"
No you haven't - where is your evidence about people with no sensory ability?
"I was talking about the spiritual experiences of the mystics."
With no examples - hardly compelling!
Anyway, this is all a red herring.
Your original point was that trusting your senses was a much to d ...[text shortened]... hereby you fail to utilise your sense of vision. Not when you doubt your vision to be accurate!
We spoke specifically about blind people having visual dreams. Here's an abstract of the study that was mentioned in the AFB (American Foundation for Blind) page:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12527101&dopt=Abstract
[Re: Spiritual experience of mystics] With no examples - hardly compelling!
Read vistesd's post.
Let us consider the consequences of assuming you cannot trust your senses at all (1), and compare it to the consequence of not trusting your belief in God (2)...
2. You believe that God does not exist. You stop praying and going to church. You live your life to the full and die happy and fulfilled.
And possibly spend eternity in Hell - providing you do manage to die happy and fulfilled and atheist. Far too many avowed atheists have converted to theism/deism later in life - Sartre, Edith Stein, Flew etc. Presumably these people were not happy and fulfilled.
From these examples, it should be apparent that believing your senses cannot be trusted is more of a leap of faith, than trusting in them!
That believing one's senses produces pleasurable effects does not make it any less a leap of faith. Entire philosophical systems are based on the premise that the world of the senses is merely "illusion" (maya in Eastern terminology).
30 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesdWhat is this vague waffle?
[b]vistesd can furnish concrete examples here
[/b][/i]Thanks! 😉
Let me define “mystical” experience broadly here, in terms that I think bbarr, for instance, might agree with: “the direct (unmediated by discursive thought) experience of the ineffable real ground of our being.”
For a Zen Buddhist, that ground might be called the tathata, ...[text shortened]... cription that comes out of that experience—the terms in which the ineffable is rendered effable.[/b]
“the direct (unmediated by discursive thought) experience of the ineffable real ground of our being.”
I can get this without recourse to a higher being.
"when Suzuki used the word “God” in his writings he meant something totally different from the western theistic concept."
This proves that either there is more than one God, no God or that the perception of God is flawed, which given that he created us questions his omnipotence.
"They accept one another’s experiences as evidence, even though they may not accept the particular description that comes out of that experience"
More piffle. The fact that people 'experience' different appearing deities is more due to the fact that culturally they have been indoctrinated with different ideas of God. Their mystical 'experiences' are of course nothing more than delusions based upon expectations.
30 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeeI can get this without recourse to a higher being.
What is this vague waffle?
“the direct (unmediated by discursive thought) experience of the ineffable real ground of our being.”
I can get this without recourse to a higher being.
"when Suzuki used the word “God” in his writings he meant something totally different from the western theistic concept."
This proves that either there is more than o ...[text shortened]... heir mystical 'experiences' are of course nothing more than delusions based upon expectations.
Yes.
The fact that people 'experience' different appearing deities is more due to the fact that culturally they have been indoctrinated with different ideas of God. Their mystical 'experiences' are of course nothing more than delusions based upon expectations.
“Different appearing deities?” Not the Zen Buddhists. This is a common misunderstanding—and, frankly, an understandable one—that the term “mystical” presumes the supernatural. In the “technical” literature, it does not; and if there were a better term in the literature, I’d be more than happy to chuck this one. In Zen, there is great emphasis on trying to derail “delusions based on expectations.”
Re D.T. Suzuki: Suzuki was a Zen Buddhist. I have to agree that I always found his “God” references to be a bit confusing in that regard.
EDIT: I don't believe in the supernatural, Howard. It's not how I use any of these terms.