Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 113

Thread: Proving that the Universe is not Observer-Mind-Dependant

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    Again, you just show that your idea is circular.

    For example, you state that "we appeared about 240,000 years ago".

    But if the Universe was dependant on the mind of the observer, then that "evidence" would just be another one of the things that mind has "made up".

    There's no way to prove the objective "truth" of that "evidence".
    The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness, but my experience tells me otherwise. What a mind makes up, would have to be an asymptotic phenomena of another. But my mind is quite clearly independent of yours.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post

    Maybe my memory is indeed failing me, but i seem to recall that last time i checked neuroscience was a scientific field, not an experiment.
    You know what mean.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness
    We all? You never dreamt of other people?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    You know what mean.
    Well, it's your choice. We can either have you state an experiment, then i can state that i might as well just be dreaming about performing it (or dreaming about some other person performing it), then you can state another experiment, to which i can reply in the same way, all the way until we have covered the entire field of neuroscience, and ultimately all of science. Or you could just admit that this line of argument fails to support your position.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    We all? You never dreamt of other people?
    I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no. But then if I did, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a dream after all. Like I wouldn't get too serious over a movie... because you know... it's a movie.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no.
    I didn't say dream about being another person, i said dreamt about other people, ie having other people populate your dream with you.
    I'm going to assume you did, which implies that the mind is certainly able to construct other people to populate the world it can construct.
    Ergo your argument based on the probability of "all of us" having the same consciousness fails.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    This is specifically a thread for those who are interested in consciousness and physics and mostly for those who believe that reality would collapse without the mind or observer. In a very small proof/arguement, I will show that the order created using set-theory can prove that reality is not observer-dependent.

    From now on, I will for this take assume that a subset is a subdimension. There is a specific condition which we must keep in mind when being a subdimension of a larger system[*].
    Bold mine.
    This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set . Let the universe then be the set . Thus if is a subset of then I can write



    It is taken for fact that exists as a subset of that it cannot be an exact copy[*].
    Bold mine.

    That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that can never contain all the information contained in . This conjecture would make sense for consciousness, because whilst our brain takes in two-dimensional images from the outside world, it never models the outside with exact precision.
    Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    A final conjecture would be, that the mind exists but the universe doesn't depend on the mind whilst the mind does depend on the universe. This should clear up, once and for all the dichotomy of whether the universe is mind-dependant or not. Taking into consideration that the mind seems to be a late low-energy phenom as well, the mind emerges from the universe not the other way around.
    An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    So in short, the universe is not observer-dependent, but the mind is universe-dependent. This means that quantum mechanics may still have a role in developing consciousness because we are ''not outside'' of spacetime.
    However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter View Post
    Bold mine.
    This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.


    Bold mine.

    That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.



    Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.



    An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?



    However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.
    Ah good, fresh questions. I will get to you in a minute. I think I need a cup of tea!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Ah good, fresh questions. I will get to you in a minute. I think I need a cup of tea!
    All good and well, but i do still expect either an experiment that actually differentiates between the two hypotheses or a retraction that either hypothesis is scientific.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.

    Yes, but that does not destroy the order of the expression. For if the mind is a subset of the universe, and you further found a sub-set in the mind, there is no order broken. It would just be a new dimension.

    That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.

    That conjecture is typically a set theory conjecture. No sub-system can precisely model the system it is a part of. It's not my own which I created for the argument.

    Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.

    I believe, assuming my direction of the expression is true, then it kind of proves itself. If you like, from now on I will use conjecture, if people are happier with that.

    An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?

    It effects the synapses of the brain - the normal physiological functions such as chemical translations and signals carried from one neurotransmitter to another are simply impaired by the use of psychoactive compounds. One possible way to explain it, is when an electrical signal reaches a synapse, it may trigger release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters - when you induce the brain with certain chemicals, you are changing the entire chemistry of the brain's ability to function properly.

    However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

    The universe is exposed to our degree of describing it. It's material physical foundation had to be there independent of the mind, for... if it was not, our brains which depend on matter could never have came about.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
    All good and well, but i do still expect either an experiment that actually differentiates between the two hypotheses or a retraction that either hypothesis is scientific.
    One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    One that differentiates between knowing we are not in a dream state? Hold on. There are plenty experiments which actually probe the mind when we are asleep. There are unique differences between being asleep and being awake.
    http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/...ep-brainwaves/

    In this, it shows how certain brain waves act differently in different situations

    http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/i...rainsleep.htm#

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    SW of the town of Maricopa, AZ. This is in the southern Arizona desert.
    Posts
    1,432
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You must remember that even a sub dimension can have a subset that would not necessarily be its own dimension.

    Yes, but that does not destroy the order of the expression. For if the mind is a subset of the universe, and you further found a sub-set in the mind, there is no order broken. It would just be a new dimension.
    But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe. If however, you assume that consciousness is only a sub set of the universe then you must then define boundaries of that sub set before you begin to attribute any properties to it. Either way, it is an assumption, which is okay until you start to claim cause and effect due to these assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    That consciousness isn't an exact copy of the universe does not lead to statement that it cannot be an exact copy.

    That conjecture is typically a set theory conjecture. No sub-system can precisely model the system it is a part of. It's not my own which I created for the argument.
    Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    Conjecture is fine, but please don't insist that this is scientific proof.

    I believe, assuming my direction of the expression is true, then it kind of proves itself. If you like, from now on I will use conjecture, if people are happier with that.
    Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    An interesting conjecture. How would you explain how the mind perceives the universe when psychedelic compounds (such as LSD) are introduced into the brain?

    It effects the synapses of the brain - the normal physiological functions such as chemical translations and signals carried from neurotransmitter to another are simply impaired by the use of psychoactive compounds. One possible way to explain it, is when an electrical reaches a synapse, it may trigger release of tiny bursts of chemicals called neurotransmitters - when you induce the brain with certain chemicals, you are changing the entire chemistry of the brain's ability to function properly.
    Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    However, the interpretation of the universe is very much observer dependent.

    The universe is exposed to our degree of describing it. It's material physical foundation had to be there independent of the mind, for... if it was not, our brains which depend on matter could never have came about.
    Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP. My point is this, you are basing your position on assumptions and conjectures that have not been established in the context of your assertions.
    problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back (Piet Hein)
    I cook with wine, and sometime I even add it to the food. (W.C. Fields)
    I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
    Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.
    All truths are simple to understand, once they are found. The challenge is finding them. (attrib. to Galileo)


  14. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    But it can. If you assume that consciousness is a sub dimension of the universe, then it could be argued that consciousness would be every bit as rich as the universe.

    I don't see that happening, since our scope of the universe is fascinatingly limited at any time. True, when we observe the world, our brain tries recollect all the information it can from these photons hitting our retina's, but there is a lot of quantum information occurring in which we cannot observe, therefore, our consciousness is not an exact copy. To be quite blunt about the situation, it's many magnitudes off being as such.

    Which is fine, for set theory. However, conjecture, like assumptions, should not be used to claim cause and effect.

    In the past I have been argued to not present work well without math. In this instance, I am being argued with because I am using math! Trust me, set theory is a brilliant way to make a proposal - especially a scientific one which may require cause and effect. A very good example, would be Bells Theorem. It is a product of set theory, and it's theorem proves the inequality.

    Once again, you're offering an assumption as evidence to support your belief.

    My assumption is based on what we know from science which is then strengthened by my mathematical conjectures. I don't know what else you want me to do?

    Now you're making the assumption that every human brain operates exactly the same way and contains exactly the same chemical compounds in exactly the same proportions. However, we know that this assumption is incorrect because of the numbers of people who suffer with what we define as "mental illness".

    No, I never said every brain operates the same way. You are putting words into my mouth. I was generalizing what can happen. Drugs can effect people in different ways, but it still messes with the synapses in the same way - just the experience of the chemical changes maybe perceived differently. This is why one hallucination may differ to another person on the same drug. The dynamics are the same however, because we all have synapses and my electrical signals are transported just like yours. Just like if you cut me, I bleed like you. I may have a better pain threshold however, from you. Just like my experience of drugs might have a different side-effect to you.

    Yes, but you have not proven your assertion presented in the OP.

    As I said, if there is no question about which way the expression should be read, then the rest proves itself. As I said, if you have a problem with me using ''prove'' that is fine. We can stick with something else, like ''offers itself as a strong evidence'' for.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    From now on, I will for this take assume that a subset is a subdimension.
    Your first mistake: a subset is not a "subdimension". A subset is a set constructed by selecting objects from another set.
    Sets do not have dimensions. A subset does not have a smaller number of dimensions ("subdimension"?) than a set.

    Letting consciousness or the universe be sets is ridiculous because they are not sets. You could have a set that has one member (consciousness) and denote that as the set B. You could have a set that has one member (the universe) and denote that as the set A. Then you have the trival result that A and B have the same number of members!

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    The very fact I have used math shouldn't even be brought up in these arguments. There is no speculation when it comes to math, only to the situations it is being applied to. The only speculations (which are based on hard science) is that the universe preceded the mind. Now, normally someone would not argue that - so the math which can describe this best is set theory, by stating that the mind is a sub set of the universe. In doing so, then we can use the axioms of set theory to state things like ''the subset cannot copy itself of the whole completely''. This works well with our experiences, because we can be damn sure that whilst our brain tries to copy this world around us, what we see is only a fragment of a much greater whole which we call the universe. Saying stuff like ''but that doesn't stop a consciousness from being an exact copy'' is utterly meaningless... and itself a speculation without merit or justification. Whilst all mine do have merit and even a logical justification.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Your first mistake: a subset is not a "subdimension". A subset is a set constructed by selecting objects from another set.
    Sets do not have dimensions. A subset does not have a smaller number of dimensions ("subdimension"?) than a set.

    Letting consciousness or the universe be sets is ridiculous because they are not sets. You could have a set that has one member (consciousness) and denote that as the set B. You could have a set that has one member (the universe) and denote that as the set A. Then you have the trival result that A and B have the same number of members!
    According to this work, the universe could be a causal set, or modeled as such http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9811053v2.pdf

    I can very well describe the universe as a set. And anything inside that set defined as a subset can be treated as though it where a subdimension. In fact, I remember reading a paper which did just that, albeit, it was a totally different approach I used.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    In fact, you can refer to element subsets as subdimensions if my mind correctly remembers this stuff. Hold on while I find a link.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    At the moment I can only find this... and it's a horrible page...

    '' you can also refer to element subsets by using subdimensions''

    http://www.xjtek.com/anylogic/help/i...Equations.html

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Let me prove this in a new way.

    Think of the human perception as a subspace. It has it's own degree's of freedom - and I may not mean real ''physical degree's of freedom here''... as I said, the mind recreates the outside world, projects what it see's ''in here'' and we observe what can be described as a three dimensional vector space. What is a subspace? I can give a quick mathematical example...

    Our equation should be of the form.



    Thus if we have:



    then



    We make them equal, 1,1 and 1, and we may see it is a solution to the value . We set it to zero:



    We require two solutions, and to check if it is linearly independent, thus we can have:

    and

    they are not linearly independent so the general solution of the entire form is:



    And this is a mathematical description of a linear subspace in a matrix. Now, a subspace of is a subset that is a vector space itself and a subset of a vector space is just a set of elements from the vector space - so not every subset is a subspace, but every subspace is a subset. The mind surely would be a subset in this case. And, assuming we are talking about vector spaces, we may call the mind a subdimension, just for clarity to remind ourselves that in this bubble of perception, we do realize a three dimensional image. It is almost like as if the mind is trying to make an exact copy of what it is observing, hence why I use the set theory logic that no subset can model it's larger superset precisely.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    991
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    According to this work, the universe could be a causal set, or modeled as such http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/9811053v2.pdf
    That is right so
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I can very well describe the universe as a set.
    is wrong because you missed out the word causal.

    Now you have to show that consciousness is a causal set that is a sub set of the universe as a causal set.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    That is right so

    is wrong because you missed out the word causal.

    Now you have to show that consciousness is a causal set that is a sub set of the universe as a causal set.
    You know, causal sets might be a very good approach since it can define a cause and effect in my expression. But that is for another time when I have studied the terminology a bit better.

    Anyway, I feel you are missing the point. ''Causal'' or not, the word ''Causal'' implies an order. The real thing to remember here is that it is still a set. You flat out said that a universe could not be defined as a set, and I proved that in theory (and in practice) you were wrong.

    Now there is absolutely no point getting hung up on the word ''Causal''. As I said, it just implies an order, and if anything, if you read my work carefully, I implied an order a long time ago. I just never explicitly wrote it for causal notation. But the universe in its most blatant form, is being treated as a set.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,873

    A,B,C . . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post

    Let us denote consciousness (and everything related to) as a set . Let the universe then be the set . Thus if is a subset of then I can write



    It is taken for fact that exists as a subset of that it cannot be an exact copy[*]. No subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is made of. This is conjectured because I believe that can never contain all the information contained in . This conjecture would make sense for consciousness, because whilst our brain takes in two-dimensional images from the outside world, it never models the outside with exact precision.

    Your notation is incorrect. You have not defined B as a proper subset of A. Indeed, you have done just the opposite. B using your notation may include all of A. Here is the reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

    I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

    Regards, John M.
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isnít a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Your notation is incorrect. You have not defined B as a proper subset of A. Indeed, you have done just the opposite. B using your notation may include all of A. Here is the reference:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

    I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

    Regards, John M.
    Oh yes that's quite right. Thank you.

    I think, at the very least, that you are misapplying set theory in a metaphysical idea.

    You're allowed your opinion. This is why I posted this here... but I am curious, what you think is metaphysical about this?

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    You know, I don't think I used that notation because I don't know the latex code for it.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ...
    I see you could not refute the fact that a photon giving my retina information about the outside world was in fact definitive evidence of an outside world. I'll assume you have now changed your mind.
    ...
    How do you know it is a photon giving you that information and your brain isn't just making that information up. Our brains make up stuff all the time. This is why many illusions work. It doesn't matter if they are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile in nature.

    This is the point. Everything you know stems originally from these senses. All these senses are products of our brain and our brain can and does short circuit the chain. Your universe is the sum of everything you've experienced. If someone else makes an observation you don't know about is it part of your universe? How do you know they made the observation? Once you know they made the observation how do you know your knowledge that they made the observation isn't generated by your mind.

    caveman1917 is right. While you, me, caveman1917 and most other people accept our brain doesn't make up the universe around us it isn't a logical proof. Science is based on the fact that I am not just dreaming this but thee is nothing logically inconsistent with me being in some very vivid and self consistent dream. Like wise there is nothing inconsistent with me not being real at all but just some type of very advanced program running in some machine some where. There are some very strong arguments that we are more likely then not some type of simulation and not really real ourselves. How would we know?

    So you can't disprove a philosophy if it is consistent with observation even if you don't think it is as likely as another philosophy that would amount to the same observations.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    How do you know it is a photon giving you that information and your brain isn't just making that information up. Our brains make up stuff all the time. This is why many illusions work. It doesn't matter if they are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory or tactile in nature.

    This is the point. Everything you know stems originally from these senses. All these senses are products of our brain and our brain can and does short circuit the chain. Your universe is the sum of everything you've experienced. If someone else makes an observation you don't know about is it part of your universe? How do you know they made the observation? Once you know they made the observation how do you know your knowledge that they made the observation isn't generated by your mind.

    caveman1917 is right. While you, me, caveman1917 and most other people accept our brain doesn't make up the universe around us it isn't a logical proof. Science is based on the fact that I am not just dreaming this but thee is nothing logically inconsistent with me being in some very vivid and self consistent dream. Like wise there is nothing inconsistent with me not being real at all but just some type of very advanced program running in some machine some where. There are some very strong arguments that we are more likely then not some type of simulation and not really real ourselves. How would we know?

    So you can't disprove a philosophy if it is consistent with observation even if you don't think it is as likely as another philosophy that would amount to the same observations.
    Because, as I explained to caveman, we have evidence showing us that when we sleep, it is quite different to being awake. Unless you consider being awake is another dream state, in which case create you own thread and peddle that psuedoscientific idea. Please, go right ahead, but not here please. Now discuss something else, I am sick and tired of that rubbish.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    We have scientific measurements which record photon's hitting off the retina. We have further scientific evidence which shows that this information goes into our neural networks as a two dimensional image. The only thing science cannot fully answer for is how the brain recasts this two dimensional image into the three dimensional phenomenon known as perception. This is perhaps the only unknown. The rest is very scientific.

    Saying we have no existence of the outside world, you may as well say that every scientific experiment is bogus. I find that extremely unlikely.
    But the point is you can't tell if your observation of the scientific evidence isn't also just in your head.

    IE I can dream about seeing something. I can dream that while I'm seeing something some device shows my retina responding to what is thought to be photons. I can dream that same device records photons bouncing off my retina.

    No one here is saying that science doesn't treat the world as real. What we are saying is that science can't prove the world is real or not because the 2 situations can have EXACTLY the same results.

    So while science, and most of us hear agree with you in that the universe around us is real and not just in my mind, science can not confirm this. You seem to be frustrated by wanting to prove a philosophical view scientifically when science by its nature could not distinguish between a real universe, a really good dream, a really good simulation.

    So science just assumes that the universe is self consistent and doesn't speak on something that can not be tested, even in theory.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    The answer would be we would have to all have the same consciousness, but my experience tells me otherwise. What a mind makes up, would have to be an asymptotic phenomena of another. But my mind is quite clearly independent of yours.
    Really? Having worked in the mental health field I know people that see and hear people that I don't. They are convinced these people are independent of themselves yet from my perspective it is just them making stuff up in their head. But who knows. Maybe it is all just me having these delusions and the people that hear voices are just vivid multi sensory figments of my imagination. Just like you...I might have made you up without even knowing it while I'm in some 10 billion year or 2 second slumber.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,113
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I've never had an identity issue in a dream, no. But then if I did, I wouldn't be surprised. It is a dream after all. Like I wouldn't get too serious over a movie... because you know... it's a movie.
    You've never cried at a movie? You've never been scared at a movie? You've never laughed at a movie? You've never had your heart race watching a movie? I mean they are just movies so why should you get scared, excited, happy, sad.

Similar Threads

  1. Does the universe have a mind of its own?
    By potoole in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-16, 07:39 PM
  2. Would our universe appear to be a black hole to an outside observer?
    By skrap1r0n in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2008-Feb-08, 10:30 PM
  3. mind expanding universe
    By magic in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2007-Apr-19, 04:25 AM
  4. Proving Einstein Right
    By Candy in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 2005-Jan-29, 02:23 PM
  5. discussion=mind then mind=yoga
    By suntrack2 in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 2004-Nov-25, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: