XPost: alt.dreams.castaneda   
   From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "Ann"  wrote in message   
   news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0411112306550.4246-100000@cicero.local...   
   > Hi me@privacy,   
   >   
   > can you guess, you've just asked a central question of "current dream   
   > research" :), perhaps one with true potential... to send 'extrovert'   
   > researchers into paroxysms of rage.. for reasons to be shortly   
   > explained (in brief, it tampers with the very definition of their   
   > subject 'matter':). Anyway, since you "just wanted to get some opinions   
   > and thoughts on this" here am I -- the 'independent' thinker -- jumping   
   > in on demand, plus basically, an offer I can't refuse, especially after   
   > seeing Laura has made a "memorable" contribution (i.e. replacing your   
   > simpler words of "dreaming of day residues" by her favourite "natural   
   > hippocampal activity of memory consolidation"; the latter, of course,   
   > "having nothing to do with residue":).   
      
   The word residue implies that material from your day carries over into your   
   dreams, but without any actual reason.   
   However, there is a reason, and that's why "residue" is an improper word to   
   use.   
      
   >   
   > That is :), if you've followed our October exchange ("new to group...",   
   > after which I check this group, infrequently, my favourite being   
   > a.d.c.) of 'shots' you may be surprised to hear me now actually   
   > agreeing with Laura, in general: it's not that "current researchers   
   > have debunked the day residue theory of dreams"... but more like their   
   > newer, more "current theories" or preferred "hippocampal" words have   
   > come in its stead.   
   > Of course, little has changed in the essence, in   
   > their core belief that sees dream sleep/reality as a 'mere' (though   
   > sometimes 'necessary':) byproduct of the way more real waking   
   > life/reality.   
      
   You have failed to understand. Waking life is, in essence, a dream based on   
   sensory input. Dreams are the same, but with the sensory input replaced by   
   memories and streams of ideas that get organized and solved during the   
   dreaming.   
      
   > Meaning their 'extrovert' causation always goes one way:   
   > from the observed outside causes/factors/reasons to the inner state of   
   > the 'system'.   
      
   Or so you would prefer to think, because that'd make you "spiritual" and   
   "interesting".   
      
   >   
   > {Just like in the 'trivial' assumption that our physical problems have   
   > little to do with the mind, 'objective' illnesses falling from the sky   
   > and certainly independent of medical propaganda/words, concerns,   
   > warnings, suggestions, examinations (.., research:). E.g. the high   
   > correlation between frequency of doctor visits and chronic illnesses   
   > must be entirely due to the latter, the sorry state of the patient was   
   > first, we should never dare think of causation running the other way   
   > round, i.e. from increased medical thoughts/information/visitations to   
   > more health problems. But why not, I mean, it could as well be like the   
   > opposite of that mysterious "placebo" ("effect") that heals at least   
   > (often more, medical acupuncture might be a case in point, e.g. see the   
   > "Mysterious needle effect" from February 11, a.d.c) 35% of the cases,   
   > you think we know why.}   
      
   This is irrelevant, but the concept you describe is not opposed by the   
   medical profession. They even have a word to describe illnesses brought on   
   through the mental state of the patient; psychosomatic.   
      
   >   
   > It is just their preferred direction of causality (has to do with the   
   > basic axioms of the scientific method) that scientists like and   
   > consequently try to see/establish everywhere: their reasons (even   
   > neuro-consciousness:) start from the independently observable 'reality   
   > without' (e.g. the objective "organized matter":) to then move to the   
   > subjective reality within, but not the other way round, our dreams   
   > should have no bearing on the way we perceive 'reality'. Which is kind   
   > of funny considering that almost everything we feel, see or touch in   
   > our complex nature/reality of today was once conceived in a dream.   
      
   You just exclaim that as though it is a proven fact.   
      
   >   
   > {The modern matrix has had many architects like Aristotle, da Vinci,   
   > Newton... Even Hitler, for that matter, in a previous post (to a.d.c.   
   > from April 19: "Who is the modern day discoverer of the AP") I traced   
   > the conception of his dearest children, or how the Creator said 'Be!'   
   > to his "Beetle" (Volkswagen or people's car), to his "autobahns", his   
   > "full employment" and his machine state. And it all became true, you   
   > know, first it was just a 'dream within', and then suddenly...   
   > elsewhere in 'reality without'. As you might have guessed, this movie   
   > talk (which I like:) of "architects, matrices, prisons for our mind" is   
   > derived from the "Matrix" trilogy, to which this year were dedicated at   
   > least two full chronicles: the "Reservoir of Dreams - letting 'death'   
   > go", 12 Apr, and the "Reservoir of Dreams - Word skepticism" from 13   
   > Apr 2004.}   
      
   Yes, and the whole matrix spiel is getting tiresome. It is a hollywood   
   production, filled mostly with sophomoric brawling with a jumbled sprinkling   
   of pop-cyberpunk philosophy.   
      
   >   
   > In a broader sense, and "as evidenced by the amount and nature of the   
   > [empirical] activity", the 'extrovert' symptoms (of galactic escapism:)   
   > are part of the usually permanent aversion to something   
   > unpleasant--knowing thyself. Consequently :), they've just set the   
   > priorities 'right': explore/dissect the gorgeous universe outside   
   > instead of the frightening one within. There lie the true grounds for   
   > acquiring the persistent habit of thinking about... 'independent'   
   > chance before choice, brain before soul, the 'objective' matter over   
   > the nasty 'subjective' mind. And since we're dealing with true masters   
   > of disguise their assumptions may assume many forms, often creeping in   
   > through the back/implicit door. Speaking of dream research, for   
   > example, the customary one-way-causality (day-dreams causing   
   > night-dreams, and not vice versa:) 'protrudes' whenever we hear the..   
   >   
   > Neuroscientist: Dreaming is a product of the brain performing some sort   
   > of task in order to consolidate real life experiences   
   > and discard irrelevant information. Our dreams are just   
   > a brain/hippocampal activity consolidating our   
   > eventful day memories.   
   >   
   > Whence we can 'immediately conclude' (by the universal law of word   
   > impressions:) that sleep experiences, on the other hand, must be dead   
   > unreal.   
   > I mean, dreaming is no real life but just an 'uneventful' task,   
   > dream reality merely a life-supporting activity of, say, discarding   
   > irrelevant information (or exformation:).   
   > Dreams are inexplicable   
   > anomalous experiences ("the eventuality of an anomaly inherent to the   
   > programming of the Matrix" per the Architect "Reloaded":) that are   
   > better quickly forgotten, we'd rather spare our aware consciousness for   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)