INFORMATION AS A FOUNDATION

Me thinks that you may know a bit more about Quantum physics than you've let on!

Or, perhaps simply more than you realize.

The habit of calling Time a 4th "dimension" is a misnomer, born of a need to provide a description that is recognizable & manageable within framework that is within our conceptual grasp.

So doing allows also allows for the use of familiar mathematical techniques to be used to determine "distances" between different points within the Time-Space continuim.

My reference was to a 4th [i]Spatial[/i] dimension.

A Flatlander will see the intersection of an entity with 3 or more Spatial dimensions and his universe as a [b]1[/b] dimensional line, i.e. as having [b]1 less dimension[/b] than that of his observable universe.

Does this not then imply that, as we can observe & measure 3 Spatial dimensions, our observable universe has as a minimum, 3 plus 1, or 4, Spatial dimensions?

of Quantum & Newtonian physics.

It is an attempt to reconcile the fact that the former serves to well describe the behavior of things of vanishingly small mass, but not those with great mass, while the latter serves in exactly in opposite manner.

So, for example, how to describe the behavior of a singularity, a black hole so massive that its own gravity causes it to contract to the point of near vanishing?

Here, both Quantum & Newtonian physics fail.

String theory hopes to unite the 3 forces well described by Quantum physics (the Electro-Magnetic, Weak Nuclear & Strong Nuclear) with the odd-man-out (Gravity) that is so well described by Newtonian physics.

Quoting others, simply because they seem to support the conclusion that you might like to arrive at is an exercise in futility.

Unless such statements has a basis in fact, they remain but sentiment, and serve only to distract you from the task at hand.

And, anecdotal reports from others constitutes neither data nor information.

That is not to say that such has no basis in fact, but simply that it cannot be simply taken as fact.

To reiterate, information has [b]no existence[/b] external from the observer.

detailing my own experiences...hence I have been posting 'similiar' to what I have had, and also some what may seem 'far-fetched' beliefs of others as a 'point' of discussion.

The similarities are in ways similarly 'factual' to me but maybe not to you ( but maybe others??? )

Is my task at hand the same as yours??

maybe there are or will be some similarities...

Quantum physicists, using Super-String Theory, believe the universe is made up of 10 or 11 dimensions. Their goal is to find the holy grail of physics - the so-called "Theory of Everything" - a theory that explains all phenomena of reality.

Pythagoras, perhaps the first great mathematician, believed the cosmos is divided into 10 heavens based on the perfect number.

In Jewish mysticism, God's entire creation is composed of 10 emanations of Light from the 10 utterances of God "Let there be" to create the world by the perfect order of 10 and the law of the 10 commandments.

In Buddhism, there are 10 levels of realization toward enlightenment and 10 directions of the Buddha's light to Buddha-realms.

Christian Gnostics believed in a cosmology of 10 heavens which they based on information from the death experience of the Apostle Paul which they recorded in their scriptures (Apocalypse of Paul).

In Islam, a legend exists where Muhammad journeyed through 10 heavens.

The Biblical prophet Enoch in his writings (2 Enoch) mentions that he ascended through the 10 heavens.

The word human comes from the Hindu word hu which means light, and man which means mind. In Hinduism, there are 10 levels of universal consciousness.

The Bible describes an angelic hierarchy of 10 celestial powers.

When I ran a spell check over the original it spat up the Miriam as a option and I just thought it was too good to let go of. :D

It was sort of something to do with Deepsand's comment about Mrs Miami and then when I saw that option I remembered the slight problem with the transvestite and they Reality TV Show or whatever it was and just couldn't let it slip by. :)

The Devil Made Me Do IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Col ]:)

I read the book when I was at school so, assuming that I remember correctly, the flatlander saw the 3-dimensional being (a sphere) as a circle in his own world that changed in size as the sphere moved through the plane of his world.

The significance of the story was that, when the square flatlander was forcibly taken out of his own world and shown that three dimensions existed, he then posed the question to the sphere as to what existed outside of the sphere's three dimensions. The sphere, of course, denied that the were any more dimensions.

Bit like me, really. Hahaha! :D

That which we do not recognise! You will now have to crawl all the way to Melbourne on a bed of nails, kiss my Big TOE, beg forgiveness of the Mouse Queen and memorise everything there is to be known about quantum computers in order that your rash reference be forgiven, Col. This is serious, very, very serious!

Negative refraction, from memory, has something to do with refractive lensing, I think. Uncle Albert and all that.

Negative energy I'm still reading up on, so I'll get myself a copy of the mag tomorrow. Dark matter -- both hot and cold -- is probably somehow tied up with quantum's 11 dimensional universe.

After all, if we can only account for 2% of all the [baryonic] matter that's in the universe at present, then where's the other 98%? It's gotta be somewhere, and at the moment, until a better explanation can be offered, tucked away inside the other six dimensions seems to be the logical answer.

I'll have a stab at doing She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed's star chart -- ordinary star chart, that is -- but first I'll need her exact moment of birth, exact day and place, whether it was fine or wet, and what her mother said to the doctor afterwards before I can do anything.

Hope the nails aren't too sharp!

I've read Edwin Abbot's little classic many times, and simply extrapolated the experiences of the two-dimensional square and three-dimensional sphere into our own three (four??)-dimensional spacetime continuum to understand the higher dimensions myself.

I can quite understand where you're coming from, deepsand, simply because it makes so much sense. But unless you are venturing into the realm of tesseracts, I'm not certain that I fully understand the fourth spacial dimension you're talking about. Where does that leave the so-called temporal dimension?

Does that become the fifth dimension, or does such a dimension cease to exist? If you say 'yes', I think I'm going to find it very hard to come to terms with, simply because our worldview is spacetime, not just space.

Again, another question is this: In 'Flatland', it's easy for Abbot to describe his two-dimensional square being taken to the higher (third)-dimension and having it explained to him by the sphere.

After all, 'Flatland' is part fantasy, and when it was first penned (1880s or thereabouts) you could do anything you liked with your writing, even if it was impossible in the real world.

And that's where I come to a full stop. No matter how many other dimensions we hypothesise there might be, even if we get to the point where some or all of them become empirically testable, we ourselves will always remain three-dimensional beings, no matter what.

Consequently, we -- as we presently are -- will never be able to 'see' the fourth dimension, or the fifth or subsequent dimensions to verify their existence in person. Our experience/s of them will always only be 'second-hand'.

And that's the point I've been trying to get across all the time, not how these other dimensions are likely to manifest in our three (four)-dimensional spacetime.

I have a strong hunch that, apart from a helluva lot of dark matter being found in this extra-dimensional universe [about 98% in all], it's very likely that such things as Panther's NDEs could inhabit these esoteric regions, as could phenomena like ghosts, for instance, and any other number of, as yet unexplained, events outside our ken.

I'm not saying it will and wouldn't dare do so until adequate testing had verified such a hunch. Well, we can't test any of these things yet, but they exist, because enough circumstantial evidence exists from those who have experienced them.

Such people may be more sensitive to these other dimensions, more attuned to the invisible world around us. I don't know; again, it's just a hunch and will remain so until some or all of these things can be tested.

Okay, ready for the firing squad. My final wish is . . . !

Ten turns out to be the base number for metric measurement, which in turn was 'invented' from the simple observation that a human being possessed ten fingers and ten toes. Ten, therefore, was seen as important by many nations and religious sects.

In the Bible -- and here I mean the OT, or Jewish Bible -- the number ten is important for this reason as well as for the role it plays in 'gematria'.

This is something that I've posted on quite frequently in other threads -- as I recall, the Authenticity of the Christian Scriptures and quite probably the dreaded EL as well -- but very basically, gematria is a Hebrew word defining a technique of numerology peculiar to Hebrew [in this case] and other alphabets where the letters also represent numbers. English is not one such.

The letter for the number ten is 'zav', and without going into too much detail, I can say that these components add to ten, saving the 'a', as there are no vowels in Hebrew. [That is, there are vowels which are sounded, but rarely written!]

All I'm trying to say here is why the number ten appears to be so important in so many varying cultures and societies around the world, particularly the Hebrew variation. Other numbers, focused on for the same or similar reason/s are two, three, seven, twelve, forty, fifty, seventy and one hundred and twenty.

The problem with string theory as it now stands is that it provides not one, but several different answers to the questions posed. All lead quite readily towards the merging of at least the electro-magnetic and weak and strong nuclear forces, or GUTs -- grand unified theories.

Poor old gravity, so much weaker than the lot of 'em, is still left out in the cold. Again, a solution will be found to unite all four forces in the end, leading to the ultimate TOE.

How do we know this? Because in the beginning, at the time of the Big Bang (Whimper!), these forces were united, but separated one by one as the early universe cooled. So if they were once united, they can be so again, according to physicists' logic.

The problem is, we just don't want to cause another Big Bang when we do! Or destroy any of the other parallel universes or multiverses that quantum science predicts are out there before we've had time to explore them, however we end up achieving that.

Phew! Thank heavens I only had to teach Computers this arvo. At least that's something that I don't have to think about while I'm doing it, or get my brain fried in the process.

Time for a break, fellas. Back later.

I guess I only chose dreams as an example because they appeared to be similar to Panther's NDEs, deepsand. No more, no less.

And, like NDEs, dreams, of whatever variety, need to be explained a lot better than mere 'dream interpretations' stand at present.

When I did 'Myth and Symbol' as part of my Diploma of Arts in Professional Writing and Editing, the lecturer would swear by Jung! I came to the conclusion that Jung wasn't all he was cracked up to be, but never said anything as I wanted to pass the subject!!

I still feel on very shaky ground with Jung, and even Freud, as psycho-analysis, to me, is often even less scientific than philosophy or metaphysics. Sorry if I 'blaspheme' to those who, like my tutor, are Jung fans and keen on psycho-analysis. What I say is simply my own opinion.

Dreams, as with NDEs [probably] will be found somewhere in the 'other' dimensions of our universe. I don't know if they will. I'm just saying that maybe that's where we'll find 'em, lacking anywhere else to look.

It's also why, at least at the moment, I find myself having to at least accept the possibility that quantum science and perhaps philosophy are on a collision course.

If this is so, I hope the outcome will be that they will simply meld together with little or no fuss, rather than end in one almighty explosion! Again, I'm just thinking aloud, hypothesising. I have no evidence for any of this, just 'hunches'.

I only hope I live long enough to see what does happen in the end. Either solution will do me!

Than one lesson to learn in a single lifetime so we tend to relive our lives until we eventually get it right.

On the next reincarnation if we have tried we might be at the same level we where in the last life but then there are others who have to go back a very long way to relearn what it is that they have forgotten.

Then there are others who willingly continue to return to this time frame to help others it really all depends on the individual concerned.

Of course as the good Christians would say all the above is Blasphemy but then again they just may not be right either. :D

Col ]:)

:D :p

Gret you had better watch out or Dr Luck just might keep his promise about that "House Call!" :D

Col ]:)

I'm not even going to apologize as I'm just plain and simple sarcastic. :D

Now for the really important things "She Who Must Be Obeyed" was born at 3.25 AM on the 14-6-1756 in Paris France {Yes I know she's a blood sucking immortal :)} the weather was bad and horribly rainy and the first words that her mother said to the Midwife who delivered her was Thank God that's finished. :D

But the basis of refraction is that light is always bent the same way as it travels through different materials and this is something that has been used in Astronomy for a very long time now. The idea of Negative Refraction meaning the light is bent the other way was first postulated in 1637 I think and then latter Maxwell's equations where thought of as the standard which are still used today in some form or other.

That is Clerk Maxwell not the Silver Hammer Man that resides here though he could be the guy as he hides so much from the peers here so no one actually knows who he is so he could actually be well over 250 years old and be just like "She Who Must Be Obeyed!" :D

And for your information have a look at the posting toward the bottom of the page. Now would you like that to happen? :p

Col ]:)

May you live in Interesting Times! :)

Well I think we are.

For me personally dreams are problem solving things as when I really reach that Brick Wall I just sleep on the problem and wake up with a solution. I do not even pretend to understand how this happens I can just tell you or anyone else that it does.

But then I'm Weird even that Quacks will tell you that as after I had my Gall Bladder removed it is Alleged by "She Who Must Be Obeyed" that the medical staff where very concerned that I was not making any sense to them when I was asked questions so they kept her away from me for several hours until out of desperation they brought her in and in front of her asked how I felt. She Insists that I said "I have a pain in my D Drive." She then proceeded to laugh and told them just to pack me off to the ward and forget about it as that was how I talked in my sleep. But I still have my doubts about her story and I have no body that will back it up so I think she is pulling my leg. :D

When I used to write code she insists that I used to discuss flow charts in my sleep as well but I counter with the fact that she takes up all the bed so she couldn't possibly hear me talking in my sleep as I could never fit in the bed with her in it. She has no proof that I actually did this but I have photographic proof that she hogs the bed so I'm sticking to my idea that she is just attempting to make me sound even madder than I actually am while attempting to justify her own actions. :p

Col ]:)

If I'm understanding you correctly, you do understand the concept of quanta and the logical implications.

What is less clear to me is whether you are having difficulty understanding the consequences, or trouble reconciling them with your perception of reality.

Whichever it may be, please try to not fry any more of your brain cells; between the lot of us we've barely enough left as it is.

The intersection of a sphere & a plane is a circle, and is seen as such when viewed from [i]ouside[/i] the plane.

However, from[i]inside[/i] the plane, it will be seen only as a [i]line[/i].

That is to say, an observer confined to 2 spatial dimensions perceives only 1.

The below link provides a visual depiction of such from both perspectives.

[v]http://www.kcptech.com/dgylconf/proceedings/flatland/flat_triangle1.htm[/v]

The Temporal dimension is an entity distinct from the Spatial ones. Its existence is independent of the number of Spatial ones that we do or do not sense.

I am merely suggesting that, by extrapolating from the concept illustrated by Flatland, which is that an observer can only be aware of a number of Spatial dimensions equal to no greater than 1 less than that of his observable universe, we therefore reside in a universe with no fewer than 4 Spatial dimensions.

Thus, what we perceive as a cube is in fact a hyper-cube; the tesseract is a 3-dimensional analogue of the hyper-cube.

Greek mathematicians, of which Pythagoras was one, defined Perfect Numbers as those whose divisors summed to the number itself.

Such can be described as fitting the following form (where "**" means exponentiation) :

((2**N)-1)x((2**(N-1)) if the 1st term is Prime

N=2
1st term = 3
2nd term = 2
Product = 6, the 1st Perfect Number

N=3
1st term = 7
2nd term = 4
Product = 28, the 2nd Perfect Number

N=5
1st term = 31
2nd term = 16
Product = 496

For the Pythagoreans, 10 was not a Perfect Number.

It's a universal experience, one that gave rise to the phrase "sleep on it."

Occasionally, I also find that the answer arrives just before sleep, while I'm still barely conscious.

As for dreams, rarely do I have any recollection of such. Sometimes it makes me wonder whether I do dream!

The 2 never really conflict.

As knowledge increases, some of that which was once within the realm of Philosophy moves over to that of Science.

and, finding himself at a loss for a quick retort, decided to withdraw & lick his wound.

Knowing the type all too well, I have no hesitation in saying that it served him right.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Spiritualist Churches are divided into 2 camps, over the issue of re-incarnation.

To those who do believe in such, Christ is a most advanced Spirit, who willing returned to act as a guide.

As for Blasphemy, I submit that those Christians who might level such charge are in fact the Bad ones.

After that, [b]none[/b] of it makes sense to me.

Thanks; now I gotta start all over again.

Yes, I can quite easily fathom eleven dimensions, and many other supposedly "unfathomable" things as well.

I have an extremely unique gift, (or so it appears to me) and I truly look on as that. I can't explain it; that is, how it works, but nonetheless, it's there.

I have only to shut my eyes to "see" exactly how all these things look, and even work sometimes. And if that sounds outrageous, yes, it probably is, but, as I said, it's just THERE!

I first became aware of this ability when I was quite small, in primary school, and we used to have stuff like "mental arithmetic" and "the ten spelling you learned last night".

Mental arithmetic was simply a series of easy addition, subtraction, multiplication and division exercises and the idea was to do at least ten of them in two minutes, and more if you could.

Spelling was just that; learn 'em the night before, and then be tested the following day. In both cases, all I had to do (I discovered by chance), was to shut my eyes and the answer was there, in my mind, clearly set out, and even in colour (of all things!)

I'd always get full marks for everything, because I always spelled correctly (UK, which was what we were taught) as well as the MA, which I'd always manage to do at least five or six extra "problems", sometimes as many as ten extra, and always get everything right.

Other things I can see, or visualise, whatever you want to call it, is the days and dates of the week (again in colour!) and anything that seems to require a calculation of sorts when figuring something out.

I have no idea what this "gift" is about or how it works. I have no idea why it's come to me, as no-one else in my family has ever experienced anything like it. The only trouble is, I can never really explain to anyone else exactly what I see, but that's probably just because I lack the vocabulary to do so!

I once tried drawing what I saw, but no matter how accurate I was, no-one else even came near understanding what it was I actually "saw" in order to arrive at the answers I did.

If you can remember from the original film of "Fantasia", back in the 40s and 50s of last century, think of the coloured patterns shown with the first piece played, the Bach Fantasy and Fugue, and you might come within a coo-ee of what I see.

But if you can then interpret that kind of stuff, then you're a better person than I am! I don't know HOW I interpret it; it simply IS!!

Right, you want something that's just about as unscientific as you can get? Well, there it is. In a nutshell.

Figure that one out if you can, Boone. I'm stumped!!

I think that's what I've been trying to explain all along during this thread; about science and philosophy, I mean. While perhaps not exactly "merging", they do at least complement one another.

Dreaming is certainly a universal experience, and many tests have been run in sleep laboratories around the world to tell us when we dream by tracing our "brain waves" while we sleep.

We know about REM sleep and how long it lasts and all that. In fact, we literally know reems about sleeping and dreaming, and even, to a degree, why we dream, i.e. it's a problem solving mechanism of one kind or another.

But it still doesn't tell us WHAT dreams really are, or exactly where they come from. There's heaps of dream "interpretations" and just as much symbolism connected with 'em, but none of this explains what dreaming really is.

And it doesn't explain why some of us never remember dreaming, while others remember every second vividly. It's still not quite science (IMHO), but I guess it's on the way to it.

More than that, I'm as befuddled as I was before!

Ten may not have been a Perfect Number for the Pythagoreans, but then, humans do not generally have more than ten digits on either hands or feet. If we had been born with six digits per each hand and foot, perhaps Perfect Numbers and Greek (and/or Pythagorean math) would have played a much larger role in our history.

Personally, I don't think base 10 is such a wonderful system myself, even if the Arabic (Indian?) zero made counting and calculation so much easier for it during the middle ages.

My own preference is for the base 60 system, (and this has nothing to do with being an astronomer, although it helps, of course!). Base 60 was used by the Babylonians, and before them, possibly the Sumerians, so in spite of our ten fingers and toes, it goes back to the very dawn of history.

We've inherited parts of this system in the form of the circle and calculating time. But we still have base 10 as the foundation of our math these days, base 2 for computers and base 60 for time. It's a real hotch-potch.

What we need is a single overriding system, and my money's on the ancient base 60 system of the Babylonians and Sumerians. It makes far more sense than anything else.

I can understand the fourth spacial dimension and the hypercube, deepsand. All I was asking is what happens to the only temporal dimension (in any of the others) as far as being numbered goes?

Very trivial; just my curiosity again. Does that give us twelve dimensions all up instead of the eleven hypothesised, or is the one temporal dimension really nothing to worry about in the great scheme of things?

I met a guy last night who reckons there's actually thirteen dimensions, but even with hypercubes and all that, I can't for the life of me see how he arrives at that conclusion.

That the Quack Luck also has cold hands and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to warm them up before performing the examination. :D

But you could always try your luck at this one

http://website.lineone.net/~sheepcull/

It should keep you amused for ages killing off those nice little sheep. :)

My top score was 59 in 98 seconds but I was also on the phone at the time so it should have been better. Take note of what happens to the sheep dogs when you hit one of them as well. :p

Col ]:)

is the re-organization of long-term, non-volatile memory. An analogy might be the purging of temporary files from one's hard-drive and then defragmenting that which remains.

Continuing with the analogy, just as computers have volatile memory, RAM, so too does the brain. Volatile RAM needs to be periodically refreshed, so as to replenish the electrical charge in its capacitor cells.

Perhaps dreaming serves to refresh the brains volatile memory while the non-volatile memory is being re-organized.

Assuming that short-term memory is volatile in nature, then it might be the case that waking at certain points during sleep causes us to become temporarily consciously aware of the transient contents of short-term memory.

There are certain things which simply cannot be adequately described; they can only be experienced.

And, lacking the ability to describe such, even when 2 or more share the same event, there is no way to truly compare the experiences.

Therefore, as such are dependant on the observer, these are subjective matters.

That you & I both label our sensory experiences of, for example, a clear sky as having the color characteristic "blue" tells us nothing about how "blue" might look or feel to the other. "Blue" is merely a label that we agree to use when sensing a given portion of the visible spectrum

Likewise, we cannot describe odors, sounds or touch, except by comparision. What something really smells like remains locked in ourselves. So too with how a given piece of music makes us feel.

All of our sensory experiences, whether externally or internally induced, remain ours & ours alone, never to be shared.

That is the greatest of all isolations.

Thanks, Neil, for the tip.

Oh, one more question.

Does the [i]length[/i] of the engagement have any bearing on one's score? And, if so, is such directly or inversely correlated?

It is my understanding, which may of course be wrong, that the 11 dimensions conjectured by string theorists are 11 spatial dimensions.

Time is a different "kind" of dimension, and is relative to the observer's frame of reference.

Therefore, how time might be manifested in frames of reference having more than 3 observable spatial dimensions remains unknown.

You watch The Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon playing.

Man, too trippy....

Oh, and if you really want to have fun watch Forbidden Zone...wow...

1) [b]The lack of easily recognized & manipulated symbols.[/b]

The larger the radix, the more symbols required. Hexadecimal solved this need by adopting the 1st 6 letters of the Latin alphabet, with A through F representing the decimal values 10 through 15 respectively. Despite its relatively small radix, few people ever become proficient in Hex math.

With respect to time, we still use the Base 10 symbols to denote cardinality, with the colon serving as a special symbol for demarcation. Most people have at least some difficulty with calculations involving times, even though such is relatively easy.

(I've on numerous occasions tried to demonstrate a simple method for performing, for example, the totalling of times using a calculator, where hours are represented as integers & minutes as decimal fractions; e.g., 2 hrs. 37 min. = 2.37.

One can easily & correctly sum times by merely adding the decimal fraction 0.4 whenever the decimal portion of the running total either [i]decreases[/i] or [i]exceeds .59[/i].

This generally draws blank stares.)

Given the lack of existing symbols sufficient for the direct use of Base 60, such would require a kludge similar to that used for measuring & performing arithmetic operations on time.

2) [b]The limited size of the brain's input buffer(s).[/b]

The brain's limited input buffer, which makes it difficult for most humans to quickly count sets with more than 6 or 7 members, also makes it difficult to recall both long strings of symbols as well as those which contain many varied symbols in no obvious order.

Thus, even in Base 10 arithmetic, lengthy computations require that most record & use intermediate results rather than directly arriving at the final result.

Even given 60 distinct & easily recognizable symbols, I doubt that humans would ever become proficient manipulating stings of such.

Given the above mentioned difficulties, I would expect that systems using large radixes will be reserved for niche applications.

Are we talking about "The Force" here?

Hmmm.

It is quite easy to get 2 kills with one shot and I even got 3 kills with one shot. Maybe it's because I was on the phone talking and not really concentrating that this happened but on many of the shots that did get hits where there where a couple of sheep close together they bot showed up as "Kills." :D

I got a few sheep dogs as well along the way while killing sheep. It was very hard to not laugh when this happened as I was supposed to be serious at the time. :)

Or maybe I just got lucky. :p

Col ]:)

"All of our sensory experiences, whether externally or internally induced, remain ours & ours alone, never to be shared.

That is the greatest of all isolations."

try adding:
that is the curse of the human condition.
after all, no matter how close we are to someone else, we are isolated....alone....

the curse of a telepath, empath, telempath would be to make that final conncetion, losing the solitude... with no-one to knowingly share that connection.

That was a very succinct explanation, and by and large, you're quite right, of course.

I suppose I should have said I lean heavily towards a base 60 system rather than that's what I'd definitely prefer to work with.

Nevertheless, my original premise remains -- because of the different radices (or radixes!) we have for different instances of daily usage, it's still pretty much of a hotch-potch.

One instant when life aint so logical after all!!

of such a study, but it makes a certain amount of sense, to say the least. And I like the computer analogy with it, too!

However, it still doesn't really answer the question of where our dreams really come from -- scientifically, that is. Nor does it tell us why we dream what we do.

Was a dream prompted by the late night horror movie on TV? Or something that happened that day at the office? Or something we ate at dinner? Even as a problem-solving mechanism?

All these explanations have been offered from time to time to try and explain exactly where our dreams come from, whether remembered or not, or just why we have that particular dream.

Science still hasn't come up with an explanation for that yet. The best we can expect today is a psychological interpretation, involving the symbolism of a dream, which still doesn't give the answer "why that particular dream?"

And a dozen other things associated with dreaming that still remain unanswered.

At a rate of knotts, but I think I must need new specks as well!

My top score was a measly 51 in 107 seconds!

I could just say "Oh sure, it's just the result of mind-altering drugs!"

Unfortunately, I can't. And yes, I suppose it is lonely in a way, not being able to explain it.

But since we all have this problem, then it's not really a problem after all, is it . . . ?!!

Expect a Vulcan to arrive on your doorstep any day now to instruct you just why Logic is so important and that it can never be illogical in life. :p

Remember as Capitan Janeway said when ever I heard those words "My mind to your mind!" I get a headache for at least a fortnight. Being a first timer it will probably be a longer period of pain for you. :D

Col ]:)

Deepsand claims that you only get 50 bullets so how did you manage 51 Kills?

I've only played it the once while I was on the phone and didn't bother to actually count the number of shots or for that matter even look but I did see two sheep get shoot on several occasions and on at least one occasion 3 sheep die. But the best one was when I shot one of the sheep a sheep dog got it as well and that had me chocking in an attempt not to laugh.

Now I'm going to have to play it again just so I can see what is actually happening and I really do not play games. :(

Col ]:)

This has been the subject of many a story.

Aside from the possible sensory overload, and even assuming that one could differentiate between & identify the various sources of thoughts, sensations & feelings of others, could we handle the [i]information[/i]; or, would we be over-whelmed by it?

I suspect that, absent the ability to compartmentalize & sequester ourselves, the ability to truly communicate with the mind of another might just drive us mad.

Memories that form a logical & well time-ordered sequence within a consistent frame of observation are labeled "reality;" those that do not, "dreams."

Physically, a dream is simply a short lived awareness of the contents of volatile memory.

Sleep is a period in which our sensory input is greatly diminished, thus reducing the amount of new data available for storage in short term memory. Therefore, volatile memory either becomes sparsely populated or is re-populated with old data held in non-volatile memory. To what extent the latter occurs remains to be determined.

It may be the case that, as part of the process of re-organizing long term, non-volatle memory, that volatile memory is used as a buffer to hold data waiting to be re-written to the former.

Or, perhaps data from the former is passed to the latter for review to determine whether or not such should be saved.

It may simply be that volatile memory needs to be physically active at a certain minimum usage level in order for those memory cells to remain viable.

It is important to keep in mind that the labeling of certain portions of sleep as being "dream" states is an artifact. They have been so labeled based on the observation that one who is awakened during such is more apt to "recall" a dream than if awakened at other times. Absent the ability to read the mind of another, we can as yet only conjecture as to what they might be experiencing.

Wherefrom : Short term, volatile memory.

Which : The current contents of such, with the source of said contents to be determined.

Why : Awaiting further knowledge re. how memories are stored & managed.

While I can readily understand the 'wherefrom' and 'which' of your answer, it's still the 'why' that bugs the blazes out of me. And I suspect many others too!

Nor, I surmise, does it throw any more light on what I experience on a daily basis, wide awake and fully conscious!

I'm not sure there'll ever be an answer to that.

Of the Borg of Star Trek?(to name but one). Well, no, I wasn't really going down that path. I think I meant something more along the lines of eidetic memory, or maybe even going back further to a more primal universal memory?

That is, a time before writing when everything, by definition, had to be stored in the memory simply for the sake of survival. Meaning that everyone knew everything that needed to be known then in order to survive, but without being able to 'read' the minds of others.

And in hindsight, not really like the Borg, who (which?) devoured everything in their (its?) path in order to obtain the memories of those they annihilated.

I wonder if we could live with a kind of semi-isolation in the future? That is, general memories and those which could be regarded as necessary for survival would become surface universal memories, accessible to everyone, while more private and personal memories would remain in the deeper consciousness (or unconscious) and only accessible to the owner??

This idea then naturally leads back (?) to the one wherein we are said only to use between 10% and 15% of our entire brainpower during our lives.

Which automatically begs the question: What does the remaining 85% to 90% do in the same time? Is it this 'unknown' area where the old eidetic or universal memory lies hidden, waiting somehow to be 'resurrected' by means as yet unknown to us??

Am I verging on the edge of a universal ESP here or is this all something else entirely?

Help!!

to translate measured brain activity into meaningful sights & sounds.

Perhaps we might then learn what really happens during so-called dream states.

Until then, with no empirical observations from which to begin, we can but speculate.

to translate measured brain activity into meaningful sights & sounds.

Perhaps we might then learn what really happens during so-called dream states.

Until then, with no empirical observations from which to begin, we can but speculate.

My concern was with regards to whether or not it would be possible for humans, as we now take ourselves to be, could survive being part of a hive mind absent the ability to still maintain our individual personalities.

Obviously, if we lost our individuality we would no longer be humans as we now know them.

And, if we kept our individualities, but were unable to adequately insulate them from the onslaught of other minds, we most likely would become dysfunctional to the point where mere physical existence would be problematic.

So, it seems that the only way for us to exist, as humans, is to have some ability to isolate our own mind from those of others.

BTW, I left you a link, to a site I think that you will find interesting, over at EL. You'll need to add to EL's post count to find it.

But I have a gut feeling that sometime in that not too distant future you speak of, i.e. before they cart me out of here in a box, it'll be virtual reality that has something to do with the 'discovery' of the how and why of dreams, rather than simply relying on a philosophical 'dream interpretation'.

It would just be nice to know, that's all!

What if we cease to exist at physical death? Being mortal with no soul and there is no afterlife. We will never be able to think to ourselves again when it all ends. It is the same as never existing in the first place. In my opinion, thinking the preceding in deep thought while alone with one having no hope of the possibility of an afterlife is the scariest thought there is.

∙ Life after death can neither be proved nor disproved. This is because one would have to undergo physical death in order to prove or disprove it (and by its very nature, disproving it would not be possible). This is in contrast to something like astrology where one could undertake a study of people born at the same time and evaluate their personality traits and life outcomes at a later time to see if there is any correlation with time of birth.

There is no actual direct evidence against an afterlife - only arguments refuting the specific examples of evidence for life after death as not being sufficient proof. Although it can easily be argued that not having direct knowledge of an afterlife constitutes evidence against life after death. Life after death cannot be disproven; only the evidence in its favour can be scrutinized and rational non-believers are left to make the conclusion that life after death cannot be proven.

∙ It is hard to imagine any species (ie. mankind) would reach such a high level of consciousness of our own existence if it were all to end with this life. There is no evolutionary advantage or biological need for this. For a mortal life here on earth, the human mind is much more advanced than necessary.

Possibly we have reached such a state of consciousness, because there is a continuum to this life after this one ends? Just being conscious of our existence suggests that there may be an afterlife. Why else would we be aware of our mortality or be concerned with life after death? Possibly we can only fathom we could cease to exist because we never will cease to exist? In fact, awareness of our mortality or immortality and what it means goes beyond the awareness you exist (consciousness). Having a soul can explain consciousness, but if we do not possess souls, then how do we account for consciousness?

If it so happens that ones existence can end at any time and is not everlasting, it makes ones existence pointless in the first place and really, the ultimate form of cruelty.

∙ Why life? There is no scientific reason for the existence of life. The universe doesn't care if there is life in it - it does not benefit from it. Yet life, and especially more advanced life with consciousness like us humans, came about. A 'driving force' in the universe behind it that made it all happen would make sense. Many would call such a driving force, God.

∙ It is difficult for some of us to believe there is life after death because it is all seems too incredible that we have a soul which leaves the body upon physical death and goes on to somewhere else. This is more so the case when many of us are wrapped up in our busy day to day lives with little time for reflection. Then we do not take time out to ponder how the bigger scheme of things might be because it has little bearing on our busy every day life with all its commitments, responsibilities, and distractions. If we were to put ourselves in a very dark room with no sounds or distractions when we aren't tired or sleepy, and engage in deep thought about the subject, then we may have more insight into what may actually be the truth. Of course the alternative, that there is no survival of consciousness, is all too hard to believe for many of us also.

∙ If we came from the 'other side', then should we not have fear of returning to it. So we should not have a fear of death as we could make the assumption that we would likely have some instinct built into us that we don't need to worry about our mortality since we are immortal. However, for the large part, this fear of death exists in most people to varying degrees.

Why are we not aware of where we came from and where we are going when we die? Why do we exist at all? What is the purpose of our existence and our life in this world? If we are reincarnated so that we may improve our souls, then should we not know this? If, as taught by Christianity this is our only life on earth, then why do we not have direct knowledge of this? Why is God not in direct contact with us? Maybe not knowing is a better 'test' for us. Going into this life on earth maybe we know the answers to the preceding questions, but once here this knowledge is 'taken' from us and we only can speculate - we therefore live our lives differently possibly and are not motivated by some selfish reward for a good life lived and the suffering we endure is of greater benefit to us. In other words, having direct knowledge of the afterlife would mean we would be motivated by reward (spiritual improvement) in our actions and would not suffer as much and therefore would not improve as much spiritually.

∙ We probably need to endure a minimal amount of suffering while here on earth or otherwise we would regress spiritually (due to becoming more smug and taking more of a 'blame the victim' attitude when others suffer and therefore we would become less empathetic).

∙ It is possible that God is the collective consciousness of the universe (or universes). This might be some type of energy field which is the source of all the knowledge, intelligence, and power that guides the universe (or universes).

∙ Many of us automatically make the assumption that if life was created or designed intelligently, then there must be an afterlife. However, we are assuming the Creator or the 'force' responsible for the creation 'cares' for us and has given us souls everlasting and it is possible this may not be the case (although there are many convincing arguments and evidence for an afterlife). The reverse, however far-fetched, could also apply: that there is an afterlife without a Creator or God.

http://lifeafterdeath.info/Philosophical.htm

As can be seen from analyzing the above, anything is possible. Life after death is not necessarily dependent upon a universe or life on earth having a Creator or Designer. Although of course life after death is so much more likely rationally having such.

∙ Life forms may have had to start out very simple and then became increasing complex as time passed because the souls to occupy them would have to advance through the reincarnation cycle. Logically this would explain why life on earth evolved the way it did as shown (be it inconclusively) by the scientific evidence.

? To account for the possibility of creating living organisms from scratch (if this is even ever possible) sometime in the future, if there is life after death then the following would have to also occur spiritually: the Creator would have to take responsibility for these life forms and put souls in them (this would have already applied to cloning). Because of this, it may be harder for some to accept that living things have such a thing called a soul.

? People (most of them) seem to have a certain amount of wisdom which is evident during childhood which seems could not have just been picked up as a baby (or child). This is more specifically true for having a well developed sense of right and wrong (or even of natural justice). Therefore, we could theorize that this is either a) genetically programmed into the brain prior to birth or b) it is part of the soul which is brought into this physical incarnation. The much more plausible explanation would appear to be we have all this from an existence prior to our birth into this world.

Some of us, especially many of you reading this website may feel that your personality ( level of empathy for other life, wisdom to an extent, sense of right and wrong, etc.) has not changed significantly since you have recall for (say age 3 or 4). Your sense of self was fully developed since that early age and has not changed significantly either. What has changed is your knowledge and added memories from life experiences as should be expected. Genes cannot fully account for this. To me this suggests that we could not have developed all this by age 3 or 4 and must have carried most of this in from a previous existence. This would apply to everyone but if you came into this world with a lesser developed soul, you would expect to experience greater changes in your personality and sense of self throughout this life.

? Why do we have desires to accomplish things and improve ourselves where there is no evolutionary benefit to us, our dependents, or our species? Some examples might be (not for monetary or social gain neither): creating music, writing novels, or taking courses solely for interest or accomplishment. Maybe we are more than just our physical bodies trying to survive in this world as Darwinian evolution may have us believe.

∙ In reincarnation, one would expect that empathy is the personality trait that would definitely be carried from one life to the next. One could logically assume that a soul would not progress if it does not improve its empathy for other living things; then in subsequent lives it would be incarnated into equal or higher (more intelligent or of higher mental capacity) life forms. This is not consistent with the fact that some humans appear to have lower empathy for other life than do some animals. Possibly, higher life forms are not always incarnations of more progressed souls? For example, the soul born as a dog may have reached a higher level of spiritual development than most humans but may have taken this lower form in order to learn particular lessons in a more efficient way.

Another aspect of personality which would make sense to be part of the soul (at least partially) is wisdom. But its manifestation in the individual might be dependent upon the physical body (brain) occupied. Likewise, the empathy shown by the soul may also be likewise restricted by the physical body occupied. It may be likely that empathy and wisdom often go together - ie. a life form often won't have too much of one without having the other in the same range.

? Love or empathy for other species does not make any sense from an evolutionary viewpoint. For example, when an animal is injured or killed for no justifiable reason, we will likely feel bad about it. Yet there is no evolutionary advantage in us feeling this way and in fact it can be argued that it is a detriment to our own survival since we are competing with them. Instead, us having souls which are capable of loving all living things does explain this.

∙ If we ask the questions, who or what created our Creator if there is such? When did time start? Where did matter and energy come from? Most likely there is no start point and our Creator has always existed as have matter and energy. Contemplating the preceding, I am more inclined to believe that a Designer is ultimately responsible for the existence of our universe.

? There is the possibility that the God of our universe may have other equivalent Gods who are responsible for their own universes and there is a God who presides over all of them. This chain of hierarchy could even be infinite in length. We could rule out the possibility that a 'higher up' God may not be all good and could destroy anything beneath him (including our souls if that is in fact possible). This is because the 'ultimate' God would not create what may have evil in it and so on down the chain (He is infinitely good and all Gods below him would also be such as He who creates them is).

∙ A common argument against an afterlife is all the suffering and injustice in the world and God is nowhere to be seen to prevent it. Neither is the connection to an afterlife fully revealed (or not or hardly at all according to some) and we are left with so many unanswered questions regarding the nature of our existence. The possible rationale for this is:

(1) We are on earth to increase our empathy for other life and to be accountable for the effect of our actions and behaviour on the world. An example of this in practical terms is if we know that when we drive recklessly and our passenger dies as a result, we will feel badly. But if we know that they will be reunited with the same loved ones in the afterlife that they leave behind when they die, then our empathy for others will not improve as easily. This is because we know the loss is only temporary for everyone effected and it is as if the person who dies only just goes to a foreign land for what is a very short period of an infinite life. This might be why we do not have a complete knowledge of the afterlife. Note that with the full and complete knowledge of an afterlife, ones actions might improve but our empathy for other living things while here on earth would probably not improve to the same extent.

(2) Taking (1) further, we have decided to come into this world in order to 'fast track' our spiritual progression. We could have remained in the spirit world for this same time period but there, with full understanding, we would not advance as much (we would endure less suffering also).

(3) Since we are mentally developed to such an extent, we are given limited knowledge (through religion, logical arguments, near death experiences, etc.) so as to give us peace of mind, a sense of purpose and justice in life, and hope. As mankind has progressed through the ages, so as his mental sophistication and that is why greater evidence for the afterlife is needed to satisfy man, not mere almost blind faith. Maybe it is no coincidence that near death experiences are 'allowed' to occur so much more frequently.

(4) Empathy is something the soul must develop (as opposed to having it given to it) through suffering, loss. pain, etc. since it does not start with any. This would explain all the suffering in the world.

∙ The same observation can easily have different interpretations. Take for example, the injustice of suffering on earth. Some take this as there is no God otherwise why would God let this happen. While others see it to mean there must be a God then to administer some form of ultimate natural justice.

∙ If we possess souls and are on this earth to learn lessons and improve our souls, then why do we endure suffering for which we already possess empathy to a high degree for when others suffer the same fate? Unless something like karma can explain this, then this would in fact be evidence against us having souls and a purpose (and hence, life after death). If this is all orchestrated by some supernatural means, then surely this type of needless adversity could instead be made to happen to a person who needs to learn the lesson or improve this type of empathy. Or it could just be that whatever external influence there is is minimal or not exercised at all - because all living things are given free will. Or there could be another purpose for it that we don't see readily or not at all in this life; it could be something that has to do with future events.

? A way of looking at the relationship between the body and the soul is by way of analogy to that of a computer connected to the internet (we'll say a wireless connection to make it more alike).

At birth (or conception or somewhere in between), the soul/mind (similar to software with related files) is downloaded onto the body/brain (similar to a computer hard drive). The soul lives through this body just like software does through a computers operating system, hard drive, CPU, etc. (which we can equate to the brain). The mind which is part of the soul works using the bodies brain. Memories of previous lives and the heavens is not known because the 'software' is not able to be fully deciphered by the 'computer' (the brain) and/or all the software isn't sent. This is analogous to a new computer software program not working fully on an old computer operating system or if not enough RAM is available or the CPU is too slow (eg. the latest software doesn't run fully on Windows 95 or less than 64 MB of RAM or Pentium 1).

At death, the soul is 'uploaded' back to the heavens (internet server) along with modifications to its 'software' code (what transformations happened to the soul during its life on earth) as well as additions to its files (life experiences and memories).

We also have to wait for the brain (computer) to develop fully. This is why our wisdom and sense of right and wrong increase at such a fast rate throughout childhood without the benefit of all the life experiences to teach us - it is our soul 'coming through' as the brain develops and is able to interpret what it is bringing with it. This is especially true for the sense of right and wrong which develops very quickly in very young children. Also, being instinctive, our sense of right and wrong may have been given to us by the Creator so we might self evaluate and regulate our actions and behaviours.