XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce   
   XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid   
   From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "Ann"  wrote in message   
   news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0410122142090.1900-100000@cicero.local...   
   > Hi Laura,   
   >   
   > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Laura wrote:   
   >   
   > >> Ann's hunger-crazed brain wrote   
   >   
   > :) not any more, last week I announced the official end of my fast,   
   > joke appreciated though. As a matter of fact my dream experiences are   
   > even more unconventional than the ones with the words 'food' and   
   > 'energy', aren't you curious. I haven't talked much about them yet on   
   > a.d.c (at least not at any reasonable length:), haven't found the   
   > 'time' for what would necessarily end up a long treatise.   
      
   I'm nothing if not curious :-)   
   Btw, I frequent alt.dreams.lucid and alt.out-of-body. Not   
   alt.dreams.castaneda.   
   Not that that's a problem.   
      
   >   
   > >>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Kellie asked:   
   > >>>> LH vaguely replied:   
   > >>> Laura's "Archetype" wrote:   
   >   
   > >>> Anyhow, to answer your question:   
   > >>> Dreams seem to be a fundamental aspect of having a complex brain   
   > >>> structure.  All creatures who do, dream.   
   >   
   > >>> So where do dreams originate? The obvious answer would be that   
   > >>> dreaming is a product of the brain performing some sort of task -   
   > >>> probably in order to consolidate real life experiences and discard   
   > >>> irrelevant information...   
   >   
   > >>> ...  fascinating.. extraordinary complexity of.. brain..   
   > >>> combinations.. elements of myth and symbolism..  called   
   > >>> Archetypes.. especially evident pantheons of the ancient world..   
   > >>> same gods.. So...   
   >   
   > > For one who is wary of the real meaning of every word, you sure did a   
   > > sloppy hack-job on what I wrote.   
   >   
   > :) come on, wasn't it funny, I mean, amazing, even after dropping   
   > on occasion whole sentences your Logos/meaning was still preserved or   
   > at least easily deducible :).   
   >   
   > >>> I suppose the question really is this: Where did the archetypes   
   > >>> come from? Are they a product of dreams? Or is it just that they   
   > >>> have become so deeply ingrained in all of us over countless   
   > >>> generations that our dreams use their symbol-language?   
   >   
   > >> No doubt Laura's "complex brain structure" answer sounds deep,   
   > >> modern, fashionable, "obvoius" :), scientific and.. very   
   > >> 'informative', you know, because you see, now we finally know (the   
   > >> cliches:), now we understand... "dreams' archetypal/fundamental   
   > >> aspect", i.e. nothing :).   
   >   
   > > Well, we can't just ignore everything that neuroscience has   
   > > discovered lately. You'd be on much firmer ground had this   
   > > conversation taken place 20 or even just 10 years ago, but now you   
   > > can't ignore it and retain any semblance of being reasonable.   
   >   
   > wow :), like to jump to wild conclusions. {And isn't it better/safer   
   > to assume nothing about the background of the other parties. Frankly, I   
   > enjoy being considered dumb or unreasonable, moreover it amplifies the   
   > effect of shock then, after the surprise discovery that some things're   
   > not as they seemed, that appearances can be deceiving.} I mean "ignore   
   > everything", did I say that.  The contrary is my view, I prefer to   
   > discard nothing, I wouldn't reject even the wildest hypothesis "without   
   > proof"... and 95% confidence isn't enough for me, I'm afraid :).   
   >   
   >      "Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of   
   >      Western religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental   
   >      characteristic of Western science."   
   >        Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"   
   >   
   > >> Anyway, now it's my turn to make a contribution to this   
   > >> "fascinating" labyrinth (of Dreamwords:) and even try to reduce the   
   > >> "extraordinary complexity" of the scholarly "brain".   
   >   
   > > So... what, in your opinion, is the function of the stuff inside our   
   > > skulls? Maybe you believe, like some did in the dark ages, that it is   
   > > one massive mucus gland? :-)   
   >   
   > :) Oh, I see, "I believe... in the dark age.. function", the   
   > 'goal', i.e. What's the 'purpose' of the gorgeous organ "inside our   
   > skulls", that's the question. Actually, have you ever seen a human one,   
   > live (i.e. not dead but alive, and not on TV or picturesque textbook   
   > drawings), and if, yes, did you manage to see the "obvious complex   
   > brain structure", the neural networks perhaps:). Come on, be honest,   
   > tell us what did you see/learn, maybe then we'll start having nicer   
   > dreams :).   
      
   Of course I haven't looked at a living human brain personally. I'd have to   
   be a brain surgeon for that :-)   
   And even if I had, no, I wouldn't be able to see the complexity because my   
   senses would be inadequate for that. Neurons are very small, you know.   
   I suppose your point would be that for all we know, neurology could be a   
   huge scam?   
   That'd work, if not for the fact that surgery based on the scientific   
   understanding of the brain works as expected. The same is true of chemicals   
   that affect the brain. The mechanism is understood. It is based on the   
   "model" of the brain as an electro-chemical neural network, and it works.   
   That's good enough for me.   
      
   That said, the possibility that there is a non-physical component to the   
   mind (a soul, perhaps) can't be ruled out. There are certain anomalous   
   experiences that are inexplicable using only the physical model, and in   
   those cases the idea of a non-physical component is most alluring.   
      
   >   
   > > Besides, I am not one who glorifies the "scholarly" brain.   
   >   
   > Of course not :), I just made fun of your "scholarly" attempt to use   
   > specialized ("complex") terminology, that's all, Not that I didn't like   
   > or understand it, it's simply my experience that people tend to be more   
   > honest when talking simple words.   
      
   That's actually pretty funny, coming from someone who writes very nebulously   
   and puts every other word in quotation marks ;-)   
   You do realize that it makes reading your stuff very confusing?   
   Hmm... come to think of it, I had a discussion some time ago with someone   
   else from your newsgroup, and he did the same thing.   
   I don't really see the point of that practice, though. Trying to be   
   articulate and concise would seem a better way of making sure that the other   
   party understands your words as you mean them as much as possible, wouldn't   
   it?   
      
   >   
   > > Rational conscious thought, which I assume is what you refer to by   
   > > scholarly, is in fact a very small part of what goes on in the brain.   
   > > Less than 10%, certainly. The rest goes on "behind the scenes" as it   
   > > were, and is too complex for the puny rational mind to fully   
   > > comprehend. Things that people can't comprehend are regarded as   
   > > mystical.   
   >   
   > Agreed, yet wouldn't it be nice for this discussion to try and bring to   
   > the fore "the rest 90% of what goes on behind the scenes", what:),   
   > impossible?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)