Dreams.

[Arya]

Since we all die, a dream is actually a dream within a dream. Or, the only awake-ness that we ever experience, in that dreaming is the message from the 'soul force' (I use 'soul force' as another word for 'subconscious', in that the two retain the same idealogy), being that it doesn't surface in the consciousness.

In which case, dreaming is one of two things:

A dream of a dream.

OR

The only time we are truly awake.

^.- ?

 

[Rune Tycoon]

Since we all die, a dream is actually a dream within a dream. Or, the only awake-ness that we ever experience, in that dreaming is the message from the 'soul force', being that it doesn't surface in the consciousness.

you've just raped my brain with that statement...

I think when you die your mind dreams...

 

[blazinfasstt]

wtf are you talking about

waking life is not a dream, therefore our dreams are not a dream within a dream,

jesus, i hate all the mini-pseudo psychologists that the movie inception has created.

also, dreams come from the "soul force"??? wtf do you even mean by this??


also, you can obtain consciousness in dreams, so i do not know what u mean by it not sufficing in consciousness

 

[oxodium]

Since we all die, a dream is actually a dream within a dream.

^.- ?

This makes no sense, you go from dieing- to making the conclusion a dream is actually a dream within a dream. I'm sorry, what?

That is like saying, You only live once, I like elephants.

 

[StakingMakesBank]

I dream about runescape; does this mean runescape is my REAL LIFE; therefore I should play more, making my account, a noob inside a main?

Or when I die; do i respawn within a dream?

You have given me alot to think about...

 

[JohnK]

Have you just seen Inception?

 

[Maxxor]

Inception.... seriously...

 

[Arya]

Okay, I got this. &, I've never seen inception, lol.

What I'm saying is, everything that is around us and is us, is the conscious existence of nothingness, right? That'd be logical, in that where there is no matter, there is nothingness. Nothingness contains us, therefore, waking reality is only a product, a stem from the conscious entity that is nothing.

Our reality, our illusions, are only products of our brains, which are also no different, in that it is a product of nothingness. Our brains decide what our reality is, so, we're actually always in a dream. A perceived state of nothingness.

That makes dreaming a dream within a dream, in that something that isn't our conscious mind is perceiving this reality. It's our subconscious, or, our 'soul'. It is that being within us that is us, without being 'us'.

So, since the 'chemically perceived' state is in all technicalities, a dream, our actually 'dreams' are one of two things:

A dream within a dream.

OR

The only time we are truly awake.

Get it?

 

[malakadang]

What I'm saying is, everything that is around us and is us, is the conscious existence of nothingness, right? That'd be logical, in that where there is no matter, there is nothingness. Nothingness contains us, therefore, waking reality is only a product, a stem from the conscious entity that is nothing.

Our reality, our illusions, are only products of our brains, which are also no different, in that it is a product of nothingness. Our brains decide what our reality is, so, we're actually always in a dream. A perceived state of nothingness.

That makes dreaming a dream within a dream, in that something that isn't our conscious mind is perceiving this reality. It's our subconscious, or, our 'soul'. It is that being within us that is us, without being 'us'.

So, since the 'chemically perceived' state is in all technicalities, a dream, our actually 'dreams' are one of two things:

A dream within a dream.

OR

The only time we are truly awake.

Get it?

Look up the axiom of existence, that reduces your argument to the slippery slope fallacy and circular reasoning.

 

[blazinfasstt]

we are not surrounded by nothingness

our brains use our senses to connect with the outside world and makes sense of it. we do not create the outside world, we just rationalize it

i guess you could say that a dream is:

a dream within a rationalization of reality

 

[Arya]

Look up the axiom of existence, that reduces your argument to the slippery slope fallacy and circular reasoning.

It argues that 'existence is identity', which would essentially make opposition to a similar argument indubitable, yet, you're still not understanding.

I'm not doubting that we exist. Only, that our perception is only a dream within the nothingness that is existence. This 'axiom of existence' argues tangibility; that which exist in the tangible world, through perception.

I am proposing that that which exist within an intangible plane, entirely through our perception (Which DOES exist, and can easily be proven by noting the side effects of psychedelic chemicals), is actually our reality. And it's true; our reality is intangible. It has no identity, and yet, it exists. It is the consciousness of nothingness.

Is there any opposition to that? I mean, come on. Wave your hand through the air in front of you. Through the nothingness between the microscopic, tangible "nothingness" (air molecules, etc, etc) that we simply can not see, there is nothing.

Now, by all means, this description would enable our reality to be one thing; a reality within an intangible state.

However, isn't that what a dream is? A reality within an intangible state.

So, by all means and pulls of logic, it goes to show that dreaming, (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), and reality (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), are one in the same.

Therefore, dreams are dreams within dreams.

You see?

we are not surrounded by nothingness

our brains use our senses to connect with the outside world and makes sense of it. we do not create the outside world, we just rationalize it

i guess you could say that a dream is:

a dream within a rationalization of reality

The rationalization of a 'reality' is a dream. ^.-, lmfao.

 

[blazinfasstt]

It argues that 'existence is identity', which would essentially make opposition to a similar argument indubitable, yet, you're still not understanding.

I'm not doubting that we exist. Only, that our perception is only a dream within the nothingness that is existence. This 'axiom of existence' argues tangibility; that which exist in the tangible world, through perception.

I am proposing that that which exist within an intangible plane, entirely through our perception (Which DOES exist, and can easily be proven by noting the side effects of psychedelic chemicals), is actually our reality. And it's true; our reality is intangible. It has no identity, and yet, it exists. It is the consciousness of nothingness.

Is there any opposition to that? I mean, come on. Wave your hand through the air in front of you. Through the nothingness between the microscopic, tangible "nothingness" (air molecules, etc, etc) that we simply can not see, there is nothing.

Now, by all means, this description would enable our reality to be one thing; a reality within an intangible state.

However, isn't that what a dream is? A reality within an intangible state.

So, by all means and pulls of logic, it goes to show that dreaming, (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), and reality (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), are one in the same.

Therefore, dreams are dreams within dreams.

You see?



The rationalization of a 'reality' is a dream. ^.-, lmfao.

Definition of DREAM
1
: a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep — compare rem sleep
2
: an experience of waking life having the characteristics of a dream: as a : a visionary creation of the imagination : daydream b : a state of mind marked by abstraction or release from reality : reverie c : an object seen in a dreamlike state : vision
3
: something notable for its beauty, excellence, or enjoyable quality <the new car is a dream to operate>
4
a : a strongly desired goal or purpose <a dream of becoming president> b : something that fully satisfies a wish : ideal <a meal that was a gourmet's dream>

you are wrong.


plz take ur fail logic elsewhere




Definition of TANGIBLE
1
a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable b : substantially real : material
2
: capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind <her grief was tangible>
3
: capable of being appraised at an actual or approximate value <tangible assets>

matter is tangible

 

[Divine_God]

What we feel and sense is what our mind perceives around us.

We are not dead ( as far as we can tell... )


This being, dreams have been studied and though we may not know exactly why they are doesn't equate them to us communicating with a soul force. I don't feel that dreams are within dreams.

Dreams are within our perception of what we believe to be reality.

 

[Arya]

Definition of DREAM
1
: a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep — compare rem sleep
2
: an experience of waking life having the characteristics of a dream: as a : a visionary creation of the imagination : daydream b : a state of mind marked by abstraction or release from reality : reverie c : an object seen in a dreamlike state : vision
3
: something notable for its beauty, excellence, or enjoyable quality <the new car is a dream to operate>
4
a : a strongly desired goal or purpose <a dream of becoming president> b : something that fully satisfies a wish : ideal <a meal that was a gourmet's dream>

you are wrong.


plz take ur fail logic elsewhere

^.- , all you did was copy and paste a couple definitions of 'dream'?

As well, your very first definition is 'a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep', which is EXACTLY what conscious reality is, minus the sleep.

&. I believe I addressed that variable. So...

 

[malakadang]

It argues that 'existence is identity', which would essentially make opposition to a similar argument indubitable, yet, you're still not understanding.

It doesn't argue existence is identity, it merely says there is an undeniable relationship.
An entity cannot exist without it being something.

I'm not doubting that we exist. Only, that our perception is only a dream within the nothingness that is existence. This 'axiom of existence' argues tangibility; that which exist in the tangible world, through perception.

It doesn't argue tangibility.

I am proposing that that which exist within an intangible plane, entirely through our perception (Which DOES exist, and can easily be proven by noting the side effects of psychedelic chemicals), is actually our reality. And it's true; our reality is intangible. It has no identity, and yet, it exists. It is the consciousness of nothingness.

You need to re-read the axiom of existence.
Also, just because you've proven that our brain can be thrown into an Altered State of Consciousness through chemicals such as DMT, doesn't mean you can claim with conviction that reality, what our 5 senses perceive is nothingness.

Is there any opposition to that? I mean, come on. Wave your hand through the air in front of you. Through the nothingness between the microscopic, tangible "nothingness" (air molecules, etc, etc) that we simply can not see, there is nothing.

Just because we cannot see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Now, by all means, this description would enable our reality to be one thing; a reality within an intangible state.

However, isn't that what a dream is? A reality within an intangible state.

Dreams are an abstract.

So, by all means and pulls of logic, it goes to show that dreaming, (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), and reality (perceiving a reality within an intangible state), are one in the same.

Therefore, dreams are dreams within dreams.

A good look up on the law of equivalency might do you well as well.


You are distorting everything beyond what is logical, and reasonable. You have no evidence whatsoever to support your claims, nor any logical line of reasoning that doesn't predicate flawed premises.

 

[Arya]

It doesn't argue existence is identity, it merely says there is an undeniable relationship.
An entity cannot exist without it not being something.

"Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists." She further held that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity." That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. "

It doesn't argue tangibility.

"That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. "

Also, just because you've proven that our brain can be thrown into an Altered State of Consciousness through chemicals such as DMT, doesn't mean you can claim with conviction that reality, what our 5 senses perceive is nothingness.

I'm not saying that what our 5 senses perceive is nothingness. I had already proposed what you must have misunderstood; Reality, the very FACT that 'existence exists' (As said by your Axiom of Existence); rationalized that all tangible matter is held within an intangible vacuum, AKA, that:

Nothingness contains us

Existence is the flaw. The 'miracle'. I agree. However, again, I'm not proposing that we don't exist.

Just because we cannot see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If every square inch of the space that is reality were taken up by matter, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, then.. I don't even know where the result of that idea would go?

Therefore, like I said, even between the microscopic atoms that is air, there is nothingness. It is the flaw, it is space. It's been rationalized by physicists, and can be observed. However, it's deviating from my point.

Opposing the concept that between tangible atoms is nothingness, is supporting a concept with no empirical proof, which is dark matter. HOWEVER, that's not even my point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothingness contains us. Thus far, it can be, and has been observed. However, like you argue, 'existence exist'. Therefore, the 'flaw', the 'miracle', is reality within a vacuum of nothingness.

That concept is as simple as A = B, B = C, A = C.

NOW,
Establishing that reality is the product of what can only be described as a flaw, the conscious existence of nothing (making reality an INTANGIBLE STATE/PLANE), our perception, our reality, is as such: consciousness in an intangible state/plane.

Conscious life is not the only child of the flaw. & I'm not trying to say it is.

Tangibility can exist within an intangible state/plane. What I'M saying is that our perception is exactly that; the consciousness (perception) of an intangible state.

Our reality is a dream. Therefore, when we dream (achieve consciousness [perception] of an intangible state), we're actually dreaming within a dream.

Now you get it?

***BTDUBBS, have any of you ever heard of The Ancient Child, Laozi ? He's the first one to propose the idea of the 'flaw'. The consciousness of nothingness, that is reality. He wrote a book of poems describing, generally, the concept. It's called the Tao Te Ching (Daodejing), written some 3000-3500 years ago? Ya'll should check it out.

 

[blazinfasstt]

^.- , all you did was copy and paste a couple definitions of 'dream'?

As well, your very first definition is 'a series of thoughts, images, or emotions occurring during sleep', which is EXACTLY what conscious reality is, minus the sleep.

&. I believe I addressed that variable. So...

no you did not address that variable

dreams depend on sleep

i do not disagree that we perceive our dream world in much the same way we perceive reality.

i disagree with your chosen definition.

reality is not a dream within a dream because perception of reality does not occur while one is sleeping

sure, there is some space in between matter that is nothingness. there is the vacuum of space that is nothingness. but it is not all nothingness. there is matter as well.
you can claim that the entire universe exists in nothingness, otherwise known as space.

this does not mean that everything we perceive IS nothingness.
as you said, things exist inside this nothingness.

sure, some of what we perceive is an intangible state.

who says that dreaming is perceiving an intangible state? we create environments in our dreams that are clearly tangible to us.

also, dreams can be understood in terms of electrical signals transmitted during REM sleep. so it too is tangible to us.

 

[Arya]

1) I never said, and even SAID that I never said that 'everything we perceive is nothingness'.

2) Nothing within a dream is tangible, much like nothing you hallucinate is tangible. Though you perceive it, you can not touch it.

And lol? Dreaming IS perceiving an intangible state. Just like living is perceiving an intangible state. Because though reality holds tangible objects, 'nothing contains us'. Existence is intangible. Lmfao. That concept has never been up for discussion. It has been proven, and can openly be observed.

It would seem that from the beginning, we've simply been playing a vocabulary game. Your only true opposition is that our reality isn't a dream because a dream is perception while asleep, and our reality is perception while awake. Within that, you miss the entire point.

 

[blazinfasstt]

1) I never said, and even SAID that I never said that 'everything we perceive is nothingness'.

2) Nothing within a dream is tangible, much like nothing you hallucinate is tangible. Though you perceive it, you can not touch it.

And lol? Dreaming IS perceiving an intangible state. Just like living is perceiving an intangible state. Because though reality holds tangible objects, 'nothing contains us'. Existence is intangible. Lmfao. That concept has never been up for discussion. It has been proven, and can openly be observed.

It would seem that from the beginning, we've simply been playing a vocabulary game. Your only true opposition is that our reality isn't a dream because a dream is perception while asleep, and our reality is perception while awake. Within that, you miss the entire point.

tan·gi·ble/&#712;tanj&#601;b&#601;l/
Adjective: Perceptible by touch.
Noun: A thing that is perceptible by touch.

it is certainly possible to perceive things in dreams by touching them, regardless of their actual existence.


you should change your argument then to:
existence is perceiving an intangible state, much the same way dreaming is.

do not bring stupid dream within a dream drivel into this argument.

 

[malakadang]

"Rand held that existence is the perceptually self-evident fact at the base of all other knowledge, i.e., that "existence exists." She further held that to be is to be something, that "existence is identity." That is, to be is to be "an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist.

What the quote 'existence is identity' means is that you cannot exist without having an identity, and if you have an identity, then you must exist.

"That which has no nature or attributes does not and cannot exist. "

My point still stands.

I'm not saying that what our 5 senses perceive is nothingness. I had already proposed what you must have misunderstood; Reality, the very FACT that 'existence exists' (As said by your Axiom of Existence); rationalized that all tangible matter is held within an intangible vacuum, AKA, that:

Some earth-shattering evidence you have there.

Existence is the flaw. The 'miracle'. I agree. However, again, I'm not proposing that we don't exist.

This is borderline nonsense.

If every square inch of the space that is reality were taken up by matter, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, then.. I don't even know where the result of that idea would go?

Reality is what we can observe with our five senses.

Therefore, like I said, even between the microscopic atoms that is air, there is nothingness. It is the flaw, it is space. It's been rationalized by physicists, and can be observed. However, it's deviating from my point.

Opposing the concept that between tangible atoms is nothingness, is supporting a concept with no empirical proof, which is dark matter. HOWEVER, that's not even my point.

That's better, more concise.
Between the atoms, yes they're may well be an infinitesimally small amount of nothingness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothingness contains us. Thus far, it can be, and has been observed. However, like you argue, 'existence exist'. Therefore, the 'flaw', the 'miracle', is reality within a vacuum of nothingness.

Nothingness doesn't contain reality, infact, with your atom example above, it's reality that contains nothingness, or they interweave with each other.

That concept is as simple as A = B, B = C, A = C.

That concept is not A=B, B=C, A=C.

NOW,
Establishing that reality is the product of what can only be described as a flaw, the conscious existence of nothing (making reality an INTANGIBLE STATE/PLANE), our perception, our reality, is as such: consciousness in an intangible state/plane.

Conscious life is not the only child of the flaw. & I'm not trying to say it is.

Tangibility can exist within an intangible state/plane. What I'M saying is that our perception is exactly that; the consciousness (perception) of an intangible state.

Our reality is a dream. Therefore, when we dream (achieve consciousness [perception] of an intangible state), we're actually dreaming within a dream.

Now you get it?

***BTDUBBS, have any of you ever heard of The Ancient Child, Laozi ? He's the first one to propose the idea of the 'flaw'. The consciousness of nothingness, that is reality. He wrote a book of poems describing, generally, the concept. It's called the Tao Te Ching (Daodejing), written some 3000-3500 years ago? Ya'll should check it out.

I understand what you mean now.

Let me preface, you have no evidence.

Also, because I don't have much time, I'll just quote this:

"Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one's awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward -- a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward -- a process of apprehending one's own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. ... A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms. "