Dumbest Of Fundies

[LivingLife]

Badpuppy, if you want to rant start your own thread next time instead of hijacking. That is not very polite.

 

As far as you myriad of new definitions, you are attempting to declare how we atheists think and of course that pisses us off as you come off no better than a fucking woo woo. Perhaps you are in transition needing spirituality and what I term a replacement theology. Have at it but don't pretend you are going to make any of us hard line atheists change our minds all of a sudden. Emperical proof is what needs to meet the sniff test or else it is simple meadow muffins and turtles all the way down.

 

The folk responding here mostly will not buy your flavour of koolaide as we had our fill of it, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We do not need to exchange one woo for another woo.

 

I'll tell you exactly what I tell xians, it is all in the mind. Personally, I am not looking to fill any hypothetical god shaped vacuum as it does not exist either. I have managed to rationalize all the spiritual crap I thought was real at the time of my wooish phase.

[midniterider]

And I know you don't know how someone could make such a claim. It's like we're from different planets.

Well, except for the few actual fundy Christians on this site, I'm not sure you'll find a lot of spiritual believership on this website. Seems a lot of people here have not only shed just the Christian experience, but were so fed up that they shed everything that has to do with spiritualism. Atheism is big here. Though there are a variety of others who still have spiritual beliefs. To each his own. I also hang out on a couple pagan sites .... if I didn't, the people here might convert me to atheism..haha.

There actually is decent chunk of a sub-population here who hasn't shed all spirituality. That's why there is an Ex-Christian Spirituality forum. But they mainly keep their mouths shut everywhere but the one little forum where they feel safe to share thoughts and ideas that don't support materialism as a given. And "were so fed up" is the point, here. I absolutely don't believe it was PURE logic and rationality and NO emotional component that led most of the people on this forum to accept no possibility of ANY spirituality. I'm not saying that makes them "wrong". I'm merely saying there is obviously an emotional component here. My husband is an atheist but he is not a dogmatist. He is an atheist in the sense that he lacks any belief in God and sees no personal need for a spirituality. He doesn't dwell on the issue. And I respect his viewpoint. He isn't obligated to see reality as anything more than the material or need or engage in a spirituality. re: convert you to atheism, I know you're joking, but if anything, some of the things I've witnessed only confirms my viewpoint.

If you're saying there are haughty atheists that get bent out of shape when you say there might be something supernatural, yes I agree. There is most definitely an emotional component involved. Telling certain atheists that atheism (or science) is a religion is a great way to watch their blood boil because they have cast off that god stuff with extreme prejudice! :-) And their life is better because of that. Whether one wants to use the word religion to describe their passion for something or the comfortable warm fuzzy feeling they get reading a treatise on science, I really don't think the word is important.But some people take exception to being told science is a religion and will logically describe to you why. Words is words. They can be sorta true for someone and sorta not for someone else. In the case of beliefs or non-beliefs, there are buttons that will set off everyone. Well, not me , of course..hahaha. Have you noticed that Buddhists don't really care if someone doesn't like their religion? And the Christians I worked with while I considered myself Buddhist didn't care that much that I was Buddhist. Now if I had told one of those catholics I was an atheist...holy shit...watch out. Maybe it was just those particular people. I dont know. And no way I was going to tell them anything about my pagan interests. Pagan means Satan in their book. Now if science is a religion which holy book do they use? And who is god? Einstein? Hawking? Sagan? Or should we go ancient to make it more authentic. Like Aristotle? Someone who is dead is always better.

 

I'm pretty sure I didn't personally say science was a religion. I was merely defending someone who claimed some people are "worshipful toward science". I understood what she was trying to express... that a lot of people who are materialists seem to make a lot of non-empirical statements that sound very much like faith statements... then somehow we devolved into this where I have an 'agenda' trying to understand why some people can't accept that maybe not them personally... but demonstrably observed materialistic human beings have sometimes proven to be irrational and dogmatic. The only thing I can conclude from this discussion is that materialists are somehow "superhuman" and all rules of how human nature works don't apply to them. They're "above it all".

 

I understand what you're talking about. :-)

[blackpudd1n]

Badpuppy, if you want to rant start your own thread next time instead of hijacking. That is not very polite.

 

As far as you myriad of new definitions, you are attempting to declare how we atheists think and of course that pisses us off as you come off no better than a fucking woo woo. Perhaps you are in transition needing spirituality and what I term a replacement theology. Have at it but don't pretend you are going to make any of us hard line atheists change our minds all of a sudden. Emperical proof is what needs to meet the sniff test or else it is simple meadow muffins and turtles all the way down.

 

The folk responding here mostly will not buy your flavour of koolaide as we had our fill of it, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We do not need to exchange one woo for another woo.

 

I'll tell you exactly what I tell xians, it is all in the mind. Personally, I am not looking to fill any hypothetical god shaped vacuum as it does not exist either. I have managed to rationalize all the spiritual crap I thought was real at the time of my wooish phase.

 

I have to agree with you here. I could probably go on and say more, but I can't be bothered.

 

Oh, except to say that I had a few WTF? moments reading the last few pages. My head hurts too much to say anything more.

[midniterider]

I am not saying ANY of the things about you guys that you seem to THINK I'm saying. And it doesn't matter how much I try to explain it you refuse to see it. This makes me EXTREMELY frustrated. You will continue to caricature my position and say I'm saying things that I'm not.

 

Just a bit of constructive (hopefully) criticism then. Consolidate, consolidate, consolidate your responses. It's clear you are passionate about this subject and that comes across in your long responses but if you feel you are not being understood, it's likely due to the fact that your posts are very long and attempt to make too many points.

 

Less is often more.

Correct. I tend to skim over or even skip long posts. Most of the time I just take one piece of it and respond to. A few years ago, when I first got here, I wrote multi-page essays each time. But my responses have been shrinking ever since.

 

I skim over the really long ones just cuz I will be really tired at the end of the day if I read everything.....so that's why I'm clueless with these discussions!! haha

[badpuppy]

One my professors once told me an anecdote about having a conversation with a guy from a different but very related field. It was only some time after this conversation that neither of them actually understood what the other party had said. The problem was the words and concept which each of them were using had subtly different meanings for each of them.

 

I think this can explain a lot of the difficulty here. Ultimately concepts such as free will, spiritualism, materialism, naturalism are quite abstract concepts for which it is quite easy for two different people to have different meanings. For my part I have a difficult time truly understanding what I think free will is, let alone what you might.

 

This is a good point.

[badpuppy]

I think the problem is that people assume a "god of the gaps" idea that some spiritual component has been "tacked on". I think consciousness is the ground of all being. It's the only thing I KNOW exists without doubt. It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.) To me that is far more solid either than the supernatural god assumption or the materialistic assumption. It doesn't make me right, it's just the only way I can logically see it.

You should Google around to see if blind/deaf, from birth, people also dream like this...

 

mwc

 

To my knowledge, they do not, but they do have near death experiences where they see and hear.

[badpuppy]

Badpuppy, if you want to rant start your own thread next time instead of hijacking. That is not very polite.

 

As far as you myriad of new definitions, you are attempting to declare how we atheists think and of course that pisses us off as you come off no better than a fucking woo woo. Perhaps you are in transition needing spirituality and what I term a replacement theology. Have at it but don't pretend you are going to make any of us hard line atheists change our minds all of a sudden. Emperical proof is what needs to meet the sniff test or else it is simple meadow muffins and turtles all the way down.

 

The folk responding here mostly will not buy your flavour of koolaide as we had our fill of it, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We do not need to exchange one woo for another woo.

 

I'll tell you exactly what I tell xians, it is all in the mind. Personally, I am not looking to fill any hypothetical god shaped vacuum as it does not exist either. I have managed to rationalize all the spiritual crap I thought was real at the time of my wooish phase.

 

Okay... about five people now have assumed and accused me of things I'm not doing and have NEVER done here.

 

This pretty much proves my point that just because you call yourself a materialist doesn't make you de facto the most rational of all human beings.

 

It is fundamentally IRRATIONAL to assume someone is talking about you when they mention something that irritates them that SOME people who claim your label do. It's also irrational to read "all" when the person clearly and repeatedly states "some".

 

It's also irrational to just pull out of your butt that someone wants to "convert you to their brand of woo" or "convince you that they are right" when they are merely sharing their personal perception and have admitted it is ONLY their personal opinion of things and further that they "could be wrong". Either you can't read or you think I'm a liar. No productive conversation can happen with a person who thinks the other person has some "evil intent".

 

You read whatever the hell you want to read into that but I'm officially ignoring anyone and everyone who decides I have some "evil motive" and am out to convert them or can't stand that they disagree with me or that I'm making statements about them when I never mentioned their name nor did I say "all" of anybody did anything.

 

Some materialists are dogmatic. Some materialists are irrational. If you can't handle that some people hold that opinion then oh well.

[badpuppy]

 

 

I'm pretty sure I didn't personally say science was a religion. I was merely defending someone who claimed some people are "worshipful toward science". I understood what she was trying to express... that a lot of people who are materialists seem to make a lot of non-empirical statements that sound very much like faith statements... then somehow we devolved into this where I have an 'agenda' trying to understand why some people can't accept that maybe not them personally... but demonstrably observed materialistic human beings have sometimes proven to be irrational and dogmatic. The only thing I can conclude from this discussion is that materialists are somehow "superhuman" and all rules of how human nature works don't apply to them. They're "above it all".

 

Midniterider said:

 

I understand what you're talking about. :-)

 

Thanks!

[badpuppy]

I have to agree with you here. I could probably go on and say more, but I can't be bothered.

 

Oh, except to say that I had a few WTF? moments reading the last few pages. My head hurts too much to say anything more.

 

Nevermind. It's pointless. Think what you want about me.

[Guest Valk0010]

Hey Badpuppy because this thread has sort of been majorly derailed, unintentionally i am going to start a new thread in the lions den to response to you.

[badpuppy]

Hey Badpuppy because this thread has sort of been majorly derailed, unintentionally i am going to start a new thread in the lions den to response to you.

 

Sure, Valk, no problem!

[LivingLife]

Badpuppy, if you want to rant start your own thread next time instead of hijacking. That is not very polite.

 

As far as you myriad of new definitions, you are attempting to declare how we atheists think and of course that pisses us off as you come off no better than a fucking woo woo. Perhaps you are in transition needing spirituality and what I term a replacement theology. Have at it but don't pretend you are going to make any of us hard line atheists change our minds all of a sudden. Emperical proof is what needs to meet the sniff test or else it is simple meadow muffins and turtles all the way down.

 

The folk responding here mostly will not buy your flavour of koolaide as we had our fill of it, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We do not need to exchange one woo for another woo.

 

I'll tell you exactly what I tell xians, it is all in the mind. Personally, I am not looking to fill any hypothetical god shaped vacuum as it does not exist either. I have managed to rationalize all the spiritual crap I thought was real at the time of my wooish phase.

 

Okay... about five people now have assumed and accused me of things I'm not doing and have NEVER done here.

You hijacked this thread with your shit, I am not interested in reading your woo.

This pretty much proves my point that just because you call yourself a materialist doesn't make you de facto the most rational of all human beings.

Spoken like a typical fucking woo. Hint you cannot redefine who I am I already told you that.

It is fundamentally IRRATIONAL to assume someone is talking about you when they mention something that irritates them that SOME people who claim your label do. It's also irrational to read "all" when the person clearly and repeatedly states "some".

This thread stated talking about an xian fundie, now please tell me what your fucking woo has to do with xian woos?

It's also irrational to just pull out of your butt that someone wants to "convert you to their brand of woo" or "convince you that they are right" when they are merely sharing their personal perception and have admitted it is ONLY their personal opinion of things and further that they "could be wrong". Either you can't read or you think I'm a liar. No productive conversation can happen with a person who thinks the other person has some "evil intent".

 

You read whatever the hell you want to read into that but I'm officially ignoring anyone and everyone who decides I have some "evil motive" and am out to convert them or can't stand that they disagree with me or that I'm making statements about them when I never mentioned their name nor did I say "all" of anybody did anything.

Not an evil motive, selfish perhaps, inconsiderate yes. Just like xian woo woos, you reaqd far too much into what folk post or say.

Some materialists are dogmatic. Some materialists are irrational. If you can't handle that some people hold that opinion then oh well.

WTF is a materialist? Why the fuck do you continue with this inane babble?

 

Please start your own thread in the protected forum and rant all you wanty then you will not have to deal with folk that disagree with you.

 

Just like xian woos, stuff said seems to go right over your frigging head. You obviously have an issue with hard line atheists, get over yourself already.

[mwc]

I think the problem is that people assume a "god of the gaps" idea that some spiritual component has been "tacked on". I think consciousness is the ground of all being. It's the only thing I KNOW exists without doubt. It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.) To me that is far more solid either than the supernatural god assumption or the materialistic assumption. It doesn't make me right, it's just the only way I can logically see it.

You should Google around to see if blind/deaf, from birth, people also dream like this...

 

mwc

 

To my knowledge, they do not, but they do have near death experiences where they see and hear.

You were speaking about dreams and not NDE's. Are we moving the goalposts or making a special case for those who are blind/deaf?

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

Badpuppy, if you want to rant start your own thread next time instead of hijacking. That is not very polite.

 

As far as you myriad of new definitions, you are attempting to declare how we atheists think and of course that pisses us off as you come off no better than a fucking woo woo. Perhaps you are in transition needing spirituality and what I term a replacement theology. Have at it but don't pretend you are going to make any of us hard line atheists change our minds all of a sudden. Emperical proof is what needs to meet the sniff test or else it is simple meadow muffins and turtles all the way down.

 

The folk responding here mostly will not buy your flavour of koolaide as we had our fill of it, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We do not need to exchange one woo for another woo.

 

I'll tell you exactly what I tell xians, it is all in the mind. Personally, I am not looking to fill any hypothetical god shaped vacuum as it does not exist either. I have managed to rationalize all the spiritual crap I thought was real at the time of my wooish phase.

 

Okay... about five people now have assumed and accused me of things I'm not doing and have NEVER done here.

You hijacked this thread with your shit, I am not interested in reading your woo.

This pretty much proves my point that just because you call yourself a materialist doesn't make you de facto the most rational of all human beings.

Spoken like a typical fucking woo. Hint you cannot redefine who I am I already told you that.

It is fundamentally IRRATIONAL to assume someone is talking about you when they mention something that irritates them that SOME people who claim your label do. It's also irrational to read "all" when the person clearly and repeatedly states "some".

This thread stated talking about an xian fundie, now please tell me what your fucking woo has to do with xian woos?

It's also irrational to just pull out of your butt that someone wants to "convert you to their brand of woo" or "convince you that they are right" when they are merely sharing their personal perception and have admitted it is ONLY their personal opinion of things and further that they "could be wrong". Either you can't read or you think I'm a liar. No productive conversation can happen with a person who thinks the other person has some "evil intent".

 

You read whatever the hell you want to read into that but I'm officially ignoring anyone and everyone who decides I have some "evil motive" and am out to convert them or can't stand that they disagree with me or that I'm making statements about them when I never mentioned their name nor did I say "all" of anybody did anything.

Not an evil motive, selfish perhaps, inconsiderate yes. Just like xian woo woos, you reaqd far too much into what folk post or say.

Some materialists are dogmatic. Some materialists are irrational. If you can't handle that some people hold that opinion then oh well.

WTF is a materialist? Why the fuck do you continue with this inane babble?

 

Please start your own thread in the protected forum and rant all you wanty then you will not have to deal with folk that disagree with you.

 

Just like xian woos, stuff said seems to go right over your frigging head. You obviously have an issue with hard line atheists, get over yourself already.

So... you're saying we should have a protected forum for Atheists? Ex-Christian Rationalism and Atheism?

 

Sauce for the goose.....

[badpuppy]

I think the problem is that people assume a "god of the gaps" idea that some spiritual component has been "tacked on". I think consciousness is the ground of all being. It's the only thing I KNOW exists without doubt. It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.) To me that is far more solid either than the supernatural god assumption or the materialistic assumption. It doesn't make me right, it's just the only way I can logically see it.

You should Google around to see if blind/deaf, from birth, people also dream like this...

 

mwc

 

To my knowledge, they do not, but they do have near death experiences where they see and hear.

You were speaking about dreams and not NDE's. Are we moving the goalposts or making a special case for those who are blind/deaf?

 

mwc

 

I don't think it's moving the goal posts. If you drive a pinto you are more limited than if you drive a high-end BMW with a GPS tracking system. Your assumption seems to be that if EVERY individual mind can't create a 3-D reality that uses the five senses that somehow my viewpoint "can't" be right. (I know every person isn't having super lucid dreams and yet just because the majority of people seem to not even remember their dreams, let alone feel the ones they do remember seem very realistic doesn't mean their limit is THE limit of consciousness in the dream state.) My viewpoint is that consciousness is the ground of being. But not my PERSONAL consciousness. I merely was using an example of a smaller version of the same kind of thing to explain where I'm coming from.

 

Mentioning NDE's wasn't to "move the goal posts" the goal post is Consciousness as the creator of all that is. Dreams were a mere example, NDE's are a broader example.

[badpuppy]

So... you're saying we should have a protected forum for Atheists? Ex-Christian Rationalism and Atheism?

 

Sauce for the goose.....

 

I would support a protected forum where they can all say any of us with any spirituality are a bunch of idiotic morons. I can simply choose not to go in that area. Then people who can't interface with those who have different viewpoints from theirs without insisting on their empirical and objective "rightness" or that anyone who thinks differently is somehow judging or persecuting them could have a place to go for continued group mental masturbation.

 

It seems to me that some people who have left all spirituality don't "get" that all spiritual people don't want to "convert them". Nor are all spiritual people dogmatic with an unwillingness to admit they could be wrong. It would be nice if this type of attitude toward others was more universal, but it isn't. It's clear to me that many materialists think there is no real chance they could be wrong and everybody who disagrees with them is an unenlightened or fearful idiot.

 

Needless to say, I don't need that bullshit or frustration and have begun to use my ignore option liberally. Unfortunately that means some may reply to me and I won't see it because they've already proven to be too frustrating for me to try to deal with... which may lead them to claim some "victory" since I "avoided their question" when really I just don't want to deal with them as an individual. But meh... they were going to think I was an idiot with no rational basis for my viewpoint anyway... it seems easier to let them have their de facto victory without me having to engage and be annoyed.

[LivingLife]

You keep harping on materialists and somehow redefining that to mean atheists. That is what pisses me off. Who made you Ms. Theosaurus?

 

Stop insisting atheists are materialists and use the fucking right term ATHEISTS. It is called building a strawman and expect us to defend your invention.

 

I do not give two shits about your spirituality but if you are going to harp on this issue on any thread here in Rants, where we take off the gloves, then I am going to piss on your parade every time. This thread had fuck all to do with your spirituality initially. I do read your posts elsewhere and do not comment.

 

However coming here and insisting atheists are materialists I will say you are a woo just like a xian woo. Stop with your shit and I will back off too. I have explained my position on spirituality and feel no loss whatsoever for my POV. To me it is all imaginary but if you need it please be my guest, not that you need my permission.

[blackpudd1n]

I have to agree with you here. I could probably go on and say more, but I can't be bothered.

 

Oh, except to say that I had a few WTF? moments reading the last few pages. My head hurts too much to say anything more.

 

Nevermind. It's pointless. Think what you want about me.

 

Why are you so angry? Because people disagree with you? Why do you assume to know what I do and don't think about you? Because that is the only thing I can infer from what you said.

 

Next time, before you come to conclusions, why not stop and think a moment. You do not know what the other person is going through in their own life. For instance, I live with bipolar, and in the space of 10 days, my dad landed in hospital, my friend lost her baby daughter, and another person who had meaning to me has died. Now, do you think that perhaps had more to do with my head hurting than anything you said?

 

LivingLife had some good points. People will get pissed off when you presume to know how they think and feel. Atheists are just as diverse a group as any other you can think of. No two humans are ever the same.

[ireckinso]

Boy logged back in after 2 days off and all I can say "Holy Shit!"

[mwc]

I don't think it's moving the goal posts. If you drive a pinto you are more limited than if you drive a high-end BMW with a GPS tracking system. Your assumption seems to be that if EVERY individual mind can't create a 3-D reality that uses the five senses that somehow my viewpoint "can't" be right. (I know every person isn't having super lucid dreams and yet just because the majority of people seem to not even remember their dreams, let alone feel the ones they do remember seem very realistic doesn't mean their limit is THE limit of consciousness in the dream state.) My viewpoint is that consciousness is the ground of being. But not my PERSONAL consciousness. I merely was using an example of a smaller version of the same kind of thing to explain where I'm coming from.

You're the one that stated "It's the only thing I know can create 3-D realities to interact with (we do it every night when we dream.)" Blind, from birth, people do not do this. Deaf people, again from birth, do not experience sound. They do not experience what their senses have failed to provide.

 

Mentioning NDE's wasn't to "move the goal posts" the goal post is Consciousness as the creator of all that is. Dreams were a mere example, NDE's are a broader example.

Mentioning NDE's was an attempt to bring in something to support your position as dreams was a failure. In this case blind people reported seeing during NDE's which is far more important than their failure to have never seen anything during their lifetime of dreaming. But we weren't talking about NDE's. We were talking about dreaming. Unless dreaming and NDE's are the same phenomenon. Are they? Are NDE's simply dreams? Does the brain function in the same way during both?

 

Anyhow, I'm willing to accept that those who were blind saw perfectly well during their NDE's, but, I'll just need one quick bit of information. What does a microwave look like? Not sure? Trick question? I ask because how does a blind person know, even in during NDE what, say, orange, looks like? Why aren't they seeing a microwave. Or how would they know they aren't seeing infra-red? Or gamma rays? Maybe that isn't orange at all? Or why don't they see the rest of the radio spectrum for that matter? Why just the narrow band of visible light we normally see?

 

Hard, unanswerable, questions. Unless you have a regular old human brain (and eyes). Then it makes more sense. You can't "see" what you don't know how to see. And no one is going to see a room flooded with untold amounts of radio waves when they can report a pristine world that everyone else would see (just NDE-ified).

 

mwc

[blackpudd1n]

Anyhow, I'm willing to accept that those who were blind saw perfectly well during their NDE's, but, I'll just need one quick bit of information. What does a microwave look like? Not sure? Trick question? I ask because how does a blind person know, even in during NDE what, say, orange, looks like? Why aren't they seeing a microwave. Or how would they know they aren't seeing infra-red? Or gamma rays? Maybe that isn't orange at all? Or why don't they see the rest of the radio spectrum for that matter? Why just the narrow band of visible light we normally see?

 

I think I can help you out a bit here. I was born partially deaf, and my hearing continues to slowly deteriorate in both ears. My dreams are quiet, if not silent, even though I have some hearing. People don't speak. I feel. It is rare for anyone to speak in my dreams. My dreams and nightmares are based on vivid images- I am watching the body language of the people in my dream, and I feel accordingly. Even when I am telling someone something, there is no sound. I just know what I am trying to tell them. I very rarely have a dream with any sound. I thought everyone dreamed like this. But maybe people born with full hearing do hear a lot in their dreams. I don't know. I do like my quiet world, though.

[Chikirin]

"Dumbest of Fundies" would make a good reality show

[mwc]

I think I can help you out a bit here. I was born partially deaf, and my hearing continues to slowly deteriorate in both ears. My dreams are quiet, if not silent, even though I have some hearing. People don't speak. I feel. It is rare for anyone to speak in my dreams. My dreams and nightmares are based on vivid images- I am watching the body language of the people in my dream, and I feel accordingly. Even when I am telling someone something, there is no sound. I just know what I am trying to tell them. I very rarely have a dream with any sound. I thought everyone dreamed like this. But maybe people born with full hearing do hear a lot in their dreams. I don't know. I do like my quiet world, though.

Haven't you mentioned taking Seroquel? I also take it and I believe it is associated with vivid dreams. I don't know if my dreams are vivid or not. I don't have anything to really compare them with. They are what they are.

 

Basically anything that requires much "processing" I cannot do in a dream. What I mean is I can do anything but some things become innate. So taste isn't something I "do" but something I "know." If I eat something I "taste" it by "knowing" the taste. I can't actually savor something. I have to know what a Coke tastes like to drink one. If I eat something I don't know what it tastes like then I "invent" the taste and whether it is good or not. Like a Martian Penguin. It's never happened but were I to dream of eating one I'd never know what it would taste like but I would "know" nonetheless. I wouldn't have a taste in my mouth (my literal mouth or in my dream mouth) but I would simply "know" the flavor to some degree (it tastes kind of like chicken or it tastes like shoe with a hint of pepper) but I'd have an idea of what it tasted like and if I was into it or not. Am I eating a feast of these or am I forced to eat it to avoid dying? That could effect my position. A feast and I might think it just great but otherwise I might find it barely edible. But I'd know. If I managed to lucid dream (which I do on occasion) and I tried to force a real flavor I'd likely come up empty. Nothing would happen. I get no results but I'd still "know" and that's because I'm not tasting anything (maybe bad breath flavor).

 

The same thing with something like reading. I just "know." It's not like I can't read but there's nothing there to read. The text won't stay put, even if any real text can be made out, because you're not actually reading anything. It's being filled-in in the moment. You just need to "know" what is there and the actual words are not important like when you're actually reading. I would think the same thing is true with sounds but I have never paid any attention to that aspect. But I would think that's how sometimes background sounds make it into dreams. Things from television or radio. Things that are in the room if people nod off while they're playing. You may not get this since you're hearing, largely, silence. The important thing is to just "know" what is going on in the dream and not elsewhere. To force it brings in outside information that doesn't fit-in with the dream (and is usually just no useful information like closed eyes or no taste and so on).

 

But what I was saying before is about moving to another "level" of whatever. Being blind, or deaf, since birth, then dying for a little while causes people to suddenly "see" or "hear" but they're limited but the same exact limits as those who alive. Why if you can hear, say 20hz-20khz while you're alive do you also hear that exact same range when you die? What's the limit on hearing? Why can't you hear all things vibrate? Why isn't death a wall of sound? How does the dead deaf person suddenly know to discriminate those exact frequencies once freed from the human body (which is the reason we are limited to those range of frequencies thanks to the ear). If not hearing everything why hear anything? Why not hear an entirely different range? Or random frequencies? But no. Luckily they hear what the human ear does hear. And the same for the sight. They don't see the entire spectrum, or another part of the spectrum and so forth. The see exactly the human limit. Orange is orange even though that's a trick of the eye and brain since a photon is just a photon and not an "orange" photon. And it goes on but there's no point to continue since I think I've made my point.

 

mwc

[blackpudd1n]

I think I can help you out a bit here. I was born partially deaf, and my hearing continues to slowly deteriorate in both ears. My dreams are quiet, if not silent, even though I have some hearing. People don't speak. I feel. It is rare for anyone to speak in my dreams. My dreams and nightmares are based on vivid images- I am watching the body language of the people in my dream, and I feel accordingly. Even when I am telling someone something, there is no sound. I just know what I am trying to tell them. I very rarely have a dream with any sound. I thought everyone dreamed like this. But maybe people born with full hearing do hear a lot in their dreams. I don't know. I do like my quiet world, though.

Haven't you mentioned taking Seroquel? I also take it and I believe it is associated with vivid dreams. I don't know if my dreams are vivid or not. I don't have anything to really compare them with. They are what they are.

 

Basically anything that requires much "processing" I cannot do in a dream. What I mean is I can do anything but some things become innate. So taste isn't something I "do" but something I "know." If I eat something I "taste" it by "knowing" the taste. I can't actually savor something. I have to know what a Coke tastes like to drink one. If I eat something I don't know what it tastes like then I "invent" the taste and whether it is good or not. Like a Martian Penguin. It's never happened but were I to dream of eating one I'd never know what it would taste like but I would "know" nonetheless. I wouldn't have a taste in my mouth (my literal mouth or in my dream mouth) but I would simply "know" the flavor to some degree (it tastes kind of like chicken or it tastes like shoe with a hint of pepper) but I'd have an idea of what it tasted like and if I was into it or not. Am I eating a feast of these or am I forced to eat it to avoid dying? That could effect my position. A feast and I might think it just great but otherwise I might find it barely edible. But I'd know. If I managed to lucid dream (which I do on occasion) and I tried to force a real flavor I'd likely come up empty. Nothing would happen. I get no results but I'd still "know" and that's because I'm not tasting anything (maybe bad breath flavor).

 

The same thing with something like reading. I just "know." It's not like I can't read but there's nothing there to read. The text won't stay put, even if any real text can be made out, because you're not actually reading anything. It's being filled-in in the moment. You just need to "know" what is there and the actual words are not important like when you're actually reading. I would think the same thing is true with sounds but I have never paid any attention to that aspect. But I would think that's how sometimes background sounds make it into dreams. Things from television or radio. Things that are in the room if people nod off while they're playing. You may not get this since you're hearing, largely, silence. The important thing is to just "know" what is going on in the dream and not elsewhere. To force it brings in outside information that doesn't fit-in with the dream (and is usually just no useful information like closed eyes or no taste and so on).

 

But what I was saying before is about moving to another "level" of whatever. Being blind, or deaf, since birth, then dying for a little while causes people to suddenly "see" or "hear" but they're limited but the same exact limits as those who alive. Why if you can hear, say 20hz-20khz while you're alive do you also hear that exact same range when you die? What's the limit on hearing? Why can't you hear all things vibrate? Why isn't death a wall of sound? How does the dead deaf person suddenly know to discriminate those exact frequencies once freed from the human body (which is the reason we are limited to those range of frequencies thanks to the ear). If not hearing everything why hear anything? Why not hear an entirely different range? Or random frequencies? But no. Luckily they hear what the human ear does hear. And the same for the sight. They don't see the entire spectrum, or another part of the spectrum and so forth. The see exactly the human limit. Orange is orange even though that's a trick of the eye and brain since a photon is just a photon and not an "orange" photon. And it goes on but there's no point to continue since I think I've made my point.

 

mwc

 

Hey mwc,

 

Seroquel is more of an emergency back-up medication for me. It was given to me initially to make me sleep every night (chronic insomnia as a by-product of bipolar), and for use in higher doses when I was having an episode. The healthcare professionals involved with me recognise what a detrimental effect hospitalisation has on me, as do my loved ones, so a system of monitoring has been worked out and my episodes are treated at home. In extreme circumstances I go bush when dealing with a particularly bad episode- there's a hindu retreat four hours away where the nearest town is 17km away, there is no phone reception, no radio, tv, noise, and each abode is situated so that you cannot see or hear any of the other people staying there.

 

For the past year, I have very rarely used any Seroquel or Temazepam to aid my sleep- I wanted to try to sleep unaided. It's only recently that I started taking it more frequently, accepting that I've tried every trick I could think of that didn't involve medication or any other supplement to get to sleep, and that I just couldn't do it. The dreams were more vivid in the prolonged periods that I wasn't taking anything to aid my sleep, than when I'm on the Seroquel. The night that I had the most whacked-out dreams was when someone smoked some marijuana in the same room as me. They only had a couple of cones, but I am incredibly sensitive to that shit, and ended up having dreams that I was covered in cane toads and all sorts of other whacked-out shit.

 

It's interesting that you mention dreaming about reading text. I have dreams where I am trying to read a book, but the more I concentrate, the harder it is to read. Is this what happens to you?

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph (my apologies- my brain is tired). Are you talking about those near death experiences? I haven't had one, so I can't really talk about that. Except that I find it interesting that the people who talk about having them can always describe what they saw or heard using descriptions that are readily understood by others. This alone makes me doubtful that these experiences aren't just a series of images constructed in the mind of the person as a result of a surge of adrenaline or something, based on images or concepts that they have already been exposed to in the course of their lives. Why don't they ever come back from these experiences stunned silent by how mind-blowing what they saw was?

[mwc]

[snip]

I also take seroquel for sleep. I have N24 and tried everything. It really doesn't do anything more than slow the speed my sleep phase moves a bit. It's actually a really nasty drug as far as I'm concerned and don't recommend it unless it's a last resort.

 

It's interesting that you mention dreaming about reading text. I have dreams where I am trying to read a book, but the more I concentrate, the harder it is to read. Is this what happens to you?

Yes. I've tried reading and noticed I don't actually read. The text is gibberish. Even if it seems reasonable it won't sit still (from moment to moment) so it can be read. This usually happens during those all important moments when the "big reveal" is about to happen and I just have to read the book or something. I can "know" what is written there but I can't ever actually read (and then especially re-read) what is supposedly written there. The "knowing" is easy but the *doing* is pretty much impossible. It's like the opposite of real life where you read then know.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in the last paragraph (my apologies- my brain is tired). Are you talking about those near death experiences? I haven't had one, so I can't really talk about that. Except that I find it interesting that the people who talk about having them can always describe what they saw or heard using descriptions that are readily understood by others. This alone makes me doubtful that these experiences aren't just a series of images constructed in the mind of the person as a result of a surge of adrenaline or something, based on images or concepts that they have already been exposed to in the course of their lives. Why don't they ever come back from these experiences stunned silent by how mind-blowing what they saw was?

Yeah. It was about NDE's. If you die why don't you see and/or hear the entire radio spectrum? Why would it mirror this life which is limited because of our bodies? Your house is probably flooded with all sorts of radio waves right now. At this moment. You just can't see them. So now you die. Right now. You're dead. Why do you still see your house just how you saw it a few moments ago? Why aren't you "seeing" this flood of radio waves? How about an easier to envision example. Why not see the NDE world like a Predator? More infrared. That thermal image thing. It's not entirely accurate since the movie remapped everything into our visible spectrum but you get the idea I think. The Predator, as I'm stating it, would directly see that for itself. And there is a whole EM spectrum out there to see/hear/feel/taste/experience/whatever. But instead you die and it's pretty much the same as now (give or take). The "whitest white" or the "bluest blue" doesn't mean much of anything. The purest color/sound/etc. doesn't mean much. If someone saw something like, say, gamma ray bursts with their naked eyes (as it were) since that can be confirmed is impressive. Seeing grandma in the whitest robe ever isn't.

 

I agree that people do "feed" them the stories. My best friend essentially "died" (he's dead now) but before that he saw a "light" (for lack of a better word) and family and the whole nine. Anyhow, he had seen a show that explained how people died. He told me that he knew it wasn't real but just him dying and it was the last gasp of his brain before he was dead. His wife and SiL were convinced it was a NDE and "jesus" and all that shit. He'd call me and ask about afterlives and all that. He never really did it but his wife started adding little bits and pieces to the story...bits and pieces that weren't in the initial tellings. She eventually "converted" her hubby and practically turned his little "experience" into Pauline moment (okay...not that bad). When you rely on others to "remember" for you then you tend to remember what they want you to remember. Now that he's dead his life is whatever she wants it to be and at his funeral he had converted to xianity (news to me and certainly would have been to him).

 

mwc