Lding Is Not Supernatural, There Are No Shadow Men. Its Jus

Nothing you said proves anything though. Neurons is a cell used to transmit information, Who's to say where the information its coming from, wether a source we can't pick up on, or ourself. The fact is you don't know. As for why we dream, yeah its not the same buts its another huge question related to lucid dreaming that we don't have answers to, probably the biggest question, which when answered could completely alter our view of dreaming. Im not saying your wrong at all but to say everyone else is when you don't know is just funny.

That shows us the images are coming from our mind... But there is nothing to suggest we are teleported to some new plane of the universe. Or that its some astral realm, or that shadow people exist. We know that neurons randomly fire in our brains, and that makes dreaming. The information comes from our own brains. That is what the evidence suggests, it does not suggest any mystical or magic plane of reality. There is no evidence to support any of the claims that this is some magic astral plane. Yes, they are wrong, all the evidence suggests otherwise!

Your statement is very shortsighted. Assume the grand total of human knowledge can fit into the space the size of a period. >>>>> . <<<<<<<< And the total possible information about existance and conciousness could fit on a piece of paper w meters wide and l meters long. We couldn't possibly know the dimensions of the paper and may never know. It's possible our organic bodies can't comprehend what is possible, which seems plausible since we already know that there is a lot to the universe our senses cannot perceive. To say that lucid dreaming and aspects of it are nothing but biology 'because...uh.....biology' is as puerile as saying that the world was made because God said so.

All the images we see are coming from our mind lol That doesn't prove anything. Again just cause there isn't evidence yet, doesn't make it wrong. just like everything you've said isn't proof. Last time i checked just cause we don't have evidence yet doesn't automatically make what you said wrong and just cause something points in a certain direction doesn't make you right. Doesn't seem like this is a conversation worth having cause your wrong, not in the sense what you said might not be true, but that you think these are for sure the answers even thought they aren't proven either.

> When you start trying to objectively explain spiritual/religious beliefs, they quickly break down. The issue lies in the fact that there is no such thing as "objective" reality. There are innumerable subjective realities; each created and maintained by the panoply of living things. Consensus reality is an illusion that has been known to philosophy since the Ancient Greeks and only reinforced by modern physics. As Einstein himself stated: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." From Robert Anton Wilson's "Cosmic Trigger": >"Reality" is a word in the English language which happens to be (a) a noun and (b) singular. Thinking in the English language (and in cognate Indo-European languages) therefore subliminally programs us to conceptualize "reality" as one block-like entity, sort of like a huge New York skyscraper, in which every part is just another "room" within the same building. This linguistic program is so pervasive that most people cannot "think" outside it at all, and when one tries to offer a different perspective they imagine one is talking gibberish. >The notion that "reality" is a noun, a solid thing like a brick or a baseball bat, derives from the evolutionary fact that our nervous systems normally organize the dance of energy into such block-like "things," probably as instant bio-survival cues. Such "things," however, dissolve back into energy dances -- processes or verbs -- when the nervous system is synergized with certain drugs or transmuted by yogic or shamanic exercises or aided by scientific instruments. In both mysticism and physics, there is general agreement that "things" are constructed by our nervous systems and that "realities" (plural) are better described as systems or bundles of energy functions. >So much for "reality" as a noun. The notion that "reality" is singular, like a hermetically sealed jar, does not jibe with current scientific findings which, in this century, suggest that "reality" may better be considered as flowing and meandering, like a river, or interacting, like a dance or evolving, like life itself.

But there is no evidence that god made the world, there is evidence that biology of the human brain makes our dreams. It is shortsighted to pretend that anything is true without evidence, and there is no evidence of shadow men or lucid dreams being some astral plane of existence. That is just foolishness, with no evidence to support it. Lack of knowledge, does not discount the evidence we have, we must go on the evidence there is.

The evidence we have, suggests that reality is much like a dream. Quantum physics and our knowledge of reality say that life is like a dream, our mind makes the world around us. But I don't see how any of this is spiritual in nature, just science. Nothing I see has suggested anything about souls, or god, or heaven or hell, or demons, or angles. Those are things that people call spiritual, metaphysical, this seems more science, then spiritual.

My input is backed by evidence. If there is no evidence to the contrary, then you are wrong. You are telling me we should believe something with no evidence, that is a bad idea, if you don't have any evidence to support a claim then we must assume you are wrong in your claim. There is no evidence to support LD are shadow men are nothing more then our minds, there is evidence to suggest it is just our minds. Believing in something with no evidence, is nonsense, you suggestion that we assume someone might be right when all evidence suggests otherwise is just plain wrong. We follow the evidence, and the evidence suggests that there are no shadow men and lucid dreams are not spiritual or supernatural in nature.

Yes, we seem to have quite different definitions for spirituality. It's a tricky word. To me, conciousness is already metaphysical. The physical world would operate by the laws just fine without there existing any experience for anyone. The only experience anyone can observe is their own, so there can't be any objective science about it. You can only correlate physical brain measurements with peoples self-reporting, and that's it. Its not much better than asking a bot "are you sentient?".

Thank you. Most of the people in this thread, who got bitter and butt-hurt, really reflect the madness and delusional fanaticism of the primitive people from our past ranting about "sun gods" and freaking out when someone pointed out a much more logical explanation that now permeates our sciences. "The earth is not flat, the earth circles the sun, etc." What we are witnessing here is the bitterness and fanaticism of people who believe in nonsense like "lighting gods", and those people are not known to be rational or reasonable. And prone to freak-outs, fanaticism and nonsense positions.

Alright so, dismissive is a much better word than dick. My mistake on that. But I guess I just have a personal problem with people being dismissive. So I'll resign that you've got some good points. But neither of us is gonna really budge on this topic so, I'll leave it at that.

AGAIN just cause we haven't found evidence yet doesn't mean its wrong. All this "evidence" doesn't prove anything, it may point in a direction, but if you can't even see half the problem, you cant answer the question. Im in no way religious and I know we have no proof of god but that doesn't make religious people wrong and me right, we have no idea what happens after death, sure from our eyes its seems there dead and gone. But that doesn't prove there isn't life after death. It just seems like you'll never learn. Have a nice day.

If there is no evidence of one thing, and evidence of another, then we must logically go with what the evidence points too. You cant seriously expect a rational adult to believe in something with no evidence... Stating "Just cause we haven't found evidence yet doesn't mean its wrong", is the same thing as stating we have no reason to believe its true, and thus should assume it is wrong. When the evidence points to it not being true, we have to conclude its not true. Your idea that we should believe something with no evidence, is ridicules, you will never learn, you are delusional. One day you will look back on your suggestions that we should believe something hard to believe as it is, with not the slightest shred of evidence, and you are going to feel pretty stupid.

I don't know if I believe in it, not really I suppose... Spirituality means to me believing or recognition of some higher power, or meaning in the world regarding a higher power or alternative to what we recognize as real life, in relation to ourselves. (angles, god, spirits, astral projection, alternative existences, ect) But I do not see any of that, or an evidence of that, in Lucid Dreaming. Nor have I ever experienced anything spiritual in regards to lucid dreaming, only a recognition of new ability's our biology has, in connection to what we knew about it already, a form of scientific discovery about what our biology is capable of, and our consciousness. Science yes, but not spirituality.