DrmDoc

On 11/8/2018 at 11:37 AM, sakura said:

Thank you for your consideration..acually that was the thing that there wasnt anything that stressed me during that time period..and these dreams were repeated after almost every 3 months so if there was anything that tensed me ,although that wasnt the case, that cant repeat after 3 months almost in a pattern..

Apologies for this delayed response.  Although our dreams may seem profoundly significant, dreaming isn't the most significant aspect of the sleep process.  Actually, what occurs before and after each cycle of dreaming is more important to brain health and mental acuity than understanding what your dream experience or content may signify.  Wakeful brain activity, which is both consciousness and dreaming, requires energy that produces cell waste.  For our brain to function efficiently that waste must be removed, which is what occurs more efficiently during the sleep process when the brain is not dreaming. We experience several cycles of dreaming that increase in length as the sleep process progresses.  During the earlier cycles of this process, we experience longer stages of non-dreaming (NREM) sleep as our brain works to remove the extracellular waste produced by wakeful brain activity.  Dreaming cycles are shorter during this period as sort of a neural test of our brain's sustain connectivity after each period of waste removal.  This connectivity test effectively increases blood flow and oxygen to the brain, which arouses our brain's cognitive and perceptual centers.  Our dreams are a narrative of what our brain believes it is perceiving during these periods of cognition and perception.  Although you do not believe you were stressed when you were experiencing your lucid dreams, your dreams suggest that you were.  Understand that dreams are unconscious interpretations of experience; therefore, they are interpretation of experiences that may not have reached your conscious awareness...like being stressed and not being consciously aware that you were.  

On 10/16/2018 at 6:55 AM, sakura said:

about a year ago i had dreams in which i was full consicous...i can do whatever i want and literally move on my own but i couldnt wake up like i was trapped there and all things there seemed strange and hateful i dont know but i just wanted to just return to my real world but great effort i somehow managed to return..

but now i dont suffer from that but can anyone guide me what was all that because i couldnt find any explaination 

If I'm not too late to this discussion, definitively a lucid dream wherein you experienced an awareness of being within a dream.  To understand your experience it's best to know that all dreams arise from activations in the brain associated it's metabolic needs during sleep.  Our brain consumes about 20% of our total energy uptake, which is a continuous process even while we sleep.  These brain activations in sleep involve the same cognitive centers we use to navigate our conscious experience of physical/material reality.  Therefore, dreaming is a type of wakefulness or altered state of consciousness amid sleep.  The distinction in the brain between dreaming and true consciousness involves a distinction between the sort of stimuli or sensory information our brain receives and processes while in its divergent states of consciousness.  All dreams, including lucid dreaming, are a response to stimuli our wakeful brain amid sleep seek to interpret. Therefore, dreams and everything you experience within them are interpretations of stimuli that you perceive when your brain arouses amid sleep to service its metabolic needs.  In understanding what your lucid dream experience may signify, you should consider what sort of stimuli your sleep brain appears to be interpreting.  Focusing on the overall context of your dream, you were trying to escape a state or condition that you knew wasn't real or reality.  Was it, perhaps, a reflection of some social or mental state or condition you were experiencing around that time a year ago?    

You won't find the support or insight, you obviously want or need, at this or any science discussion website or, for that matter, any website.  You should discuss your concerns in person with a qualified professional who can identify, understand, and address your very apparent--to me at least--needs.  I hope this helps. 

20 hours ago, cornel said:

Can science prove God or afterlife?

Science can't prove anything; however, with clearly defined and approved parameters and references in science, I think it can provide a methodology whereby evidence can be investigated or found for the existence of "God or afterlife".  Wouldn't a more interesting question be what experiment would we personally designed to provide definitive evidence in science for the existence of god(s)?  Then we might at least be aware at which point in our own experience we would begin to suspect or accept the existence of some omnipotent intelligence.

20 hours ago, StringJunky said:

If an organism can make a choice, it's conscious. It's just by degree and sophistication that separates different hierarchies of organisms; it's not a present/not present phenomenon. from what I've read, this ability goes down to worms albeit extremely primitively. This is interesting about ants:

If ants have the possible ability of self-recognition, it would seem reasonable to surmise they have some level of consciousness imo.

It is only "uniquely human" if we define it by criteria which only humans can attain.

I couldn't agree more, consciousness "is only 'uniquely human' if we define it by criteria which only humans can attain."  It isn't unique, consciousness is merely the quality or level of awareness suggested or expressed by the behavioral responses of a species to stimuli.

Sen. John McCain was one of only two Republicans in recent memory whom I felt showed an uncommon measure of integrity for an American politician.   The other was Sen. Arlen Specter.  Sadly, I fear, we shall not see the likes of such men in American politics ever again, which is probably why I have such great hope for those women who have shown tremendous courage in choosing to serve our government.  This is not to suggest that women are incorruptible, it's just time for a major social shift in our governing given the status of our current male leadership, which is extraordinarily disgraceful--IMO.  

I read that article and a fascinating find it was indeed!

On 8/9/2018 at 12:27 PM, BlackBird said:

   I don't believe a werewolf caused it. That sounds like a stretch, even for me. But it is important to me to figure out what caused it, something that makes sense to me, so it doesn't happen again. I do appreciate your help though, explaining the first one. 

Perhaps this will assist your inquiry: Somatic illness, hypnotic suggestion, psychogalvanic reflexes, pseudocyesis, and the placebo effect are just some of the myriad of evidence in science for our powerful mind/body connection.  I recall a video in my youth where a person under hypnosis experienced skin redness and blistering when given the suggestion that her hand was emersed in boiling water instead of water that was actually room temperature.  I've mentioned all this so that you might not jump to supernatural conclusions, as DrP suggests, and consider or investigate more rational causes for your injuries amid sleep.  Barring causes within your sleep environment, consider the possibility that your injuries were a somatic response to your dream experiences.       

11 hours ago, naitche said:

Off topic, but since this seems to be a point people are stuck on I will say thats likely going to be the case until some one comes up with an idea of just what is happening, and how/if we can affect that.

Or the person who can provide that evidence. Though I wonder what the future might hold for any who could.

Personally, that alone would be incentive to hide deep.

As it concerns faith, I think science has a firm grasp on what's happening.  As it may concern the paranormal, the evidence provided through real scientific methodology has, IMO, shown the paranormal or supernatural to be quite normal and not so super.  The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

6 hours ago, naitche said:

I'm gad you said 'may'. My understanding is not as poor as assumed here.

I did say no fault of science if evidence is lacking.

It was wrong to say  paranormal research is discouraged by science.  Enough people of science though, do a pretty effective job of discrediting  those interested enough to undertake its research .Few who value their credibility to science  are willing to try.  Leaving the field more open to those who don't value credibility to science. I'm sure that and much more  has a huge effect on the  availability of suitable subjects.

I agree clear, cogent and reliable evidence is lacking.

But this is not the topic here, just an example used for its similarities to the question 'What is faith?' The assumptions made of  people or their credibility who might be interested enough to try an idea. 

Thank you Phi for All, for your considered questions.

 

If a fear of lost credibility discourages our investigation, then we obviously need to develop tougher skin to become successful scientists.  Also, I don't think much of the opinions of individuals who follow the crowd and dismiss a subject a woo just because everyone say it is.  I esteem individuals who demonstrate a firm grasp of a subject that's clearly rooted in their personal investigation or study of the relevant facts.  My perspective of faith, similarly, is unbiased by the crowd and based on my own investigation of the available evidence pro, con, and personal.  Unfortunately, impartial and open-minded study of the paranormal hasn't as yet uncovered incontrovertible evidence for the paranormal. 

23 hours ago, naitche said:

While science is discouraged from looking for evidence, and is more interested in discrediting or disproving what is provided, that limits its direction and  the potential space  it might occupy. No fault of science if the evidence is not there, or does not meet the scientific conditions.

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science.  Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.   

2 hours ago, swansont said:

But he didn't play Bond. He played someone who pretended to be Bond.

Indeed, in Casino Royale Sellers played the character Evelyn Tremble, a baccarat master hired to pose as James Bond as portrayed by David Nivens.  A funny addition was Woody Allen who played Jimmy Bond, James' villainous nephew. 

Peter Sellers, primarily because he was a brilliantly funny actor...IMHO.

21 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

DrmDoc:

Your comments, which I have bolded in blue, give the impression that "non-believers" aka atheists do not have faith and therefore are not religious.  The reality is that atheist have far more faith than theists.   A further reality is that atheists are as religious as theists.

As for your comments, which I bolded in red, where you explain that, to quote you: "faith is a shield believers use against life's doubts, insecurities, and traumas," that's interesting.  Particularly since atheists routinely use their faith as a means of coping with life's doubts, insecurities, and traumas.

Alter2Ego

 

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Your response and tag here suggest to me that you are a person of faith who has thrown him or herself into this lion's den of scientific discussion. Why does a person of faith seek unwelcoming environments--such as a science discussion site--to engage in discussions of faith with staunch "non-believers"?  Is it done in defense of your faith or is it some hopeful evangelical effort?  Perhaps it's mostly about your own insecurities rather than some altruistic effort.  I guess we'll know for sure should you ever respond to this or any of the above posts.    

On 6/23/2018 at 8:54 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

Yes, by putting faith in the self.

Therefore, your idea of faith involves self deification.  Although it isn't an original notion, the idea of deifying one's self draws power from belief alone rather than any real or tangible support. Indeed, IMO, this idea is a mental placebo because its basis isn't supported by anything other than belief.  It's a sugar pill that can imbue believers with an empowering, albeit, false sense of self. 

9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Actually, my idea of faith does not involve a belief in anything higher than the self.

In my idea of faith, it does not require a higher power to be distinguished from the action or influence of the self.

Wait, what? Oh, I see...self is the higher power?  Therefore, self realization is believing in self as the higher power at the center of one's reality?

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

My idea of faith is based in a belief.

The belief is in the idea that the self is what truly exists as dependent on an external reality for an existence.

In this way, the self needs to create an external reality by working through what would be called a higher power, in order to exist.

The belief is in the higher power that exists as something that the self works through to create reality, in order to create it's existence.

This is what is meant when it is said that "I" has a belief in a higher power as responsible for "my" existence or for existence in general.

This would answer such a question as "Why does everything around me exist?, based on my own belief.

If I now understand correctly, belief in a higher power is essential to your idea of faith because believing in something greater than self gives meaning to our reality and self realization.  This idea, if I understand your view,  gives meaning by compelling us to be or become something greater than what we think we are. Therefore, your idea regards a type of personal mental mantra for life that's driven solely by belief rather than anything particularly tangible.  I think its human nature to believe in something greater than self, we are born into this world helpless and reliant on parents who are far greater and more powerful than we are at birth.  Although most of us eventually mature into our own and leave our parents for our own life and family, many of us remain psychologically dependent on the enveloping feelings of being cared for and guided by a parental force, a force greater than self.  Perhaps in this we might understand faith and why so many of us have it. 

4 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

This involves questions such as "Why do I and everything around me exist?".

I'm curious, how does your idea of faith specifically answers that question?

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith tries to answer questions in a certain way.

It does not need to answer the same types of questions as science in the same way.

You must certainly understand that faith is an answer literally without substance.  Faith is immaterial at its core and it wouldn't be faith otherwise.  It's a mental placebo humanity takes to salve an intangible hurt or satiates a curiosity uncomforted or inconvenienced by the truth. Faith doesn't answer the questions science does when those asking the questions want answers based on legitimate evidence.

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My trust will also be updated and changed, and that's something else that makes adaptable trust stronger than unshakeable faith. Faith never figures out when its wrong.

My thinking is that it wouldn't be faith if it tried.  The strength and weakness of faith is ignorance of truth--it's that miraculous pill that seems to cure our ills until we learn it's just sugar.

7 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It would me more of a problem with the way of progression of ideas rather than the proceding statements that follow it that would be at fault.

If I understand correctly, you appear to be advocation the existence of a higher power or intelligence as an essential component faith and why you have it.  Although I agree that some responses here haven't been as tactful or civil as they could have been (e.g; equating faith with clinical delusion), scientific discussion demands critical and rigorous evidence for the ideas we espouse.  As I stated previously, I don't believe people of faith are all deluded; however, I do believe in evidence for our ideas that can withstand withering criticism.  Though some comments in this forum make it seem so, it isn't personal--it's just science.

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Faith can become a matter of choosing between different ideas about reality, and believing the one that is chosen. So rather than being thought of as simply an belief, it can be thought of as one of the possible ideas about reality that an individual chooses to believe. This sets faith in a higher power apart from beliefs about things, as  it is the difference between belief in things and belief in ideas.

Therefore, your perspective of faith is in the choice of one among many ideas impacting one's perceived worldview.  Of what value is such faith when the idea believed comprises nothing more than one among a collection of notions without foundation in anything remotely or substantially real, proven, or provable?

6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

While that may be right, it should be considered that faith is often developed as one of a set of beliefs in a world view.

Rather than having a solid foundation, faith is something that has a context as a belief that forms part of a particular view of reality.

Faith can't be considered absolute truth, though it can still be accepted and thought of as true on an individual level, based on a worldview, although such acceptance would not make it absolute truth.

What you seem to be advocating here is, essentially, the incorporation of either an untruth or unprovable ideal into one's worldview.  Personally, I consider holding a worldview based on untruths or unprovable ideals untenable.  A basis, for me, necessitates provability.  Otherwise, believing in what's not or can't be proven will most certainly lead to self deception. 

31 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Does that always have to be the case? Can it be any other way in some instances?

To believers, in some instances, faith is enough because it doesn't require an explanation--just belief.  However, believing doesn't necessarily make what is believed truth especially to those of us who desire proof or evidence before acceptance.  In other words, faith isn't truth because truth demands real and tangible evidence. 

33 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Can faith ever emerge from any other way, such as someone's own perspective understanding of reality leading them to faith?

Faith seems to support or fills the void in that someone's understanding of reality where reason, evidence, or comprehension is insufficient or where same doesn't sufficiently satisfy his or her expectations.   Faith appears to evolves from a conclusion by believers that aspects of their reality are too exact or miraculous to be random or the result of some definable process within the scope of their understanding.   They'd rather exist in the mystical or believe in the magical rather than accept the ordinary or consider the mundane.  Because they are so taken by the magic, they can't or won't envision or consider anything less than the magical.