XPost: alt.dreams, alt.dreams.castaneda, alt.dreams.edgar-cayce   
   XPost: alt.dreams.lucid.entities, alt.out-of-body, japan.dreams.lucid   
   From: KC@none.invalid   
      
   Ann wrote:   
      
      
   >>No, but it is very close. Rats do dream as well, much like us it   
   >>appears, just about mazes and stuff .) I'm told the two animals   
   >>closest to humans are pig and rat, when it comes to physiology.   
   >   
   >   
   > :) :) with all due respect, but I still cannot hold my breath/gales of   
   > laughter here. I mean, even after reading it over and over again the   
   > 'code' still produces the identical 'chain reaction', you must be a   
   > programmer or something :).   
      
   I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean my sentences are a code that   
   produces the chain reaction of you laughing? I didn't actually mean to   
   program a joke .)   
      
      
   > :) so far so good, "reality is all about choices, we may choose to   
   > believe there is objective truth" or we may choose not to, "neither of   
   > which yields a contradiction, both possibilities are feasible, many   
   > different mental universes are possible" according to the   
      
   Your tone is very patronizing. To me it sounds as if you are a teacher,   
   grading my answer based on how well it matches the "right answers" you   
   have. But of course, you don't have the right answers to these   
   questions, or if you by chance did, you couldn't know they were the   
   correct ones. So why do you speak as if you knew better?   
      
      
   >>what you choose doesn't matter: when you cease to exist, chances are   
   >>the world will go on regardless of how you chose to interpret your   
   >>subjective reality .)   
   >   
   >   
   > By the same token, "chances are the world will [not] go on regardless   
   > when [the last human] ceases to exist", only a conjecture. We have two   
   > competing hypothesis here (the other one is the Big Bang, or Chance   
   > before Choice, mindless 'matter' before soulful 'mind':) and I   
   > sincerely hope scientists are not working towards that end... of   
   > 'objective' testing, I mean who'll be around then to verify/document   
   > how post-extinction reality looks like :).   
      
   Again, I can't make complete sense of what you're trying to say. Working   
   toward what end? Anyway, there is significant proof that the world and   
   life on earth existed before humans, and will continue to exist without   
   humans (most life on earth will probably never come in contact with   
   humans). To think of one's subjective reality as something more than an   
   emergent property of organized matter is without foundation.   
      
      
   >>It has proven practical. It is supposed to bring us closer to the   
   >>objective truth, but even if it fails, I don't see anything better   
   >>around. I'd rather use what we have. Cheers, KC   
   >   
   >   
   > You mean, "you don't see any practical" alternative or you can't   
   > imagine one? Come on, use your intuition.   
      
   I see the practical alternative of just making up whatever you want to   
   believe in, or let someone else make it up for you. I also see the   
   alternative of giving up the search for objective information, and be   
   satisfied with collecting subjective information only.   
      
      
   Cheers, KC   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)