Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

unusual dream recall and sleep apnea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • unusual dream recall and sleep apnea

    Hi - I posted this in the unexplained events and phenomenon section and didn't get any response so I thought i would try this area. I think these experiences relate to the topics of in recent disscussions here

    An experience I currently have in my dream life is when I awaken from dreaming I can often recall a series of associated dreams to the one I just had. These spin off back to my early childhood. Sometimes it seems that all the dreams I’ve ever dreamt are available for review like a file drawer with thousands of dreams and I can move through them at will. I've heard that memory can be seen as holographic and state dependent. Could the "state"(threshold of waking consciousness) be like the lazer that invokes the holographic image? I’ve never heard of anyone else report this kind of experience. I wondering if anyone out there has had any similar dream recall experience


    When I was somewhere between 5 and8 years old occasionally I would be laying on the bed with my arms under me and not be able to move or breath for up to ten seconds. Sleep apnea would be the current explanation although this happened when I was wide awake. There was a feeling of confinement accompanying it that was terrifying and also most notably a sense that my arms and legs would swell in size like balloons and have a tingly sensation. The Ballooning/tingling part would occasionally occur without the sleep apnea and would feel strangely euphoric. I wonder if anyone else has had similar experiences or a possible explanation.

    Thanks Larry

  • #2
    At about the same age (or a bit younger) I used to have a strange and disturbing recurring dream that I used to describe as "stiff air", which amused my parents!

    I have only the vaguest recollection of what that felt like, but it may have been similar to your experience.

    I guess the whole area of studying the nature/significance of dreams has been stultified by the physicalist (or as I prefer, mechanistic) paradigm.

    David

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by David
      I guess the whole area of studying the nature/significance of dreams has been stultified by the physicalist (or as I prefer, mechanistic) paradigm.
      Except for the 6,200 hits in PubMed.

      You're a broken record, David. Why in the name of all that is holy would the "mechanistic paradigm" ignore dreams? Is someone arguing that they don't occur?

      ~~ Paul

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
        Except for the 6,200 hits in PubMed.

        You're a broken record, David. Why in the name of all that is holy would the "mechanistic paradigm" ignore dreams? Is someone arguing that they don't occur?

        ~~ Paul
        Well tell me, does even one of those references relate to experiments that take the dream contents seriously. E.g. some people claim that dreams can be precognitive - can you site any research that tests that idea?

        The mechanistic paradigm implies that consciousness can do nothing that is clearly impossible for a mechanism - such as precognition.

        David

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by David
          Well tell me, does even one of those references relate to experiments that take the dream contents seriously. E.g. some people claim that dreams can be precognitive - can you site any research that tests that idea?
          No, but I did not realize that when you say "I guess the whole area of studying the nature/significance of dreams has been stultified by the physicalist (or as I prefer, mechanistic) paradigm," what you really mean is "They aren't studying the things I want them to about dreams."

          Pubmed hits on 'dreams precognitive': 12
          Pubmed hits on 'dreams precognition': 3

          The mechanistic paradigm implies that consciousness can do nothing that is clearly impossible for a mechanism - such as precognition.
          Why is precognition impossible for a mechanism? It simply requires a mechanism for information to flow backward in time.

          What the hell is it with the word mechanism?

          ~~ Paul

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
            What the hell is it with the word mechanism?

            ~~ Paul
            Well, Tor and others have pointed out that defining what is physical has become more and more difficult, so I decided that 'mechanistic' more closely described your view of consciousness. However, sometimes I wonder if you do have a consistent set of views about any of the subjects we discuss. Somewhere back there, I believe you wrote "psi is crap", yet now you seem to be open to the idea of precognitive dreams!

            David

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by David
              Well, Tor and others have pointed out that defining what is physical has become more and more difficult, so I decided that 'mechanistic' more closely described your view of consciousness. However, sometimes I wonder if you do have a consistent set of views about any of the subjects we discuss. Somewhere back there, I believe you wrote "psi is crap", yet now you seem to be open to the idea of precognitive dreams!
              I wrote "Psi is crap. Cased closed." when I was giving someone trouble about proclaiming "cased closed." I think it was Psibeliever.

              I don't understand why people are continually surprised when I sound like I might consider some paranormal thing. I don't dismiss psi in principle. I just don't think the evidence is compelling. And I don't need to believe in some magical nonmechanistic world to entertain psi. It might fit into the good old mechanistic naturalistic physicalist world just fine. Apparently psi believers think that the only way a person could not swallow the story is if he dismissed it on principle. It couldn't possibly be that the story is simply not compelling.

              ~~ Paul

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos View Post
                I wrote "Psi is crap. Cased closed." when I was giving someone trouble about proclaiming "cased closed." I think it was Psibeliever.

                I don't understand why people are continually surprised when I sound like I might consider some paranormal thing. I don't dismiss psi in principle. I just don't think the evidence is compelling. And I don't need to believe in some magical nonmechanistic world to entertain psi. It might fit into the good old mechanistic naturalistic physicalist world just fine. Apparently psi believers think that the only way a person could not swallow the story is if he dismissed it on principle. It couldn't possibly be that the story is simply not compelling.

                ~~ Paul
                Well, if you don't mean something, you should not say it even as a rhetorical device!

                Does magical=nonmechanistic? I think nonmechanistic is the key. If you don't overdose on philosophy, it is obvious that something that operates as a mechanism is not conscious. Your trouble is not that you don't 'believe', it is that you can't entertain any non-standard ideas long enough to see where they take you. You tend to talk about 'mindons', but I think that is a mistake. Fundamental units of consciousness can't be like bosons or fermions - all basically identical members of their group - because that seems to lead back to a mechanism - at the very least, it is an extreme assumption.

                Mechanism seems to be the problem here. There is Penrose's argument, and there is the whole problem with qualia. A mechanism that experiences a qualia seems like a paradox, because you can start dismantling it and asking which sub-portion is actually doing the experiencing ..... AI is a mechanism, and it too seems to run into problems.

                Even if you don't agree the evidence is compelling, it is surely worth thinking 'what if' for more than one or two sentences!

                Thinking about the properties of genuine non-mechanistic consciousness (free floating if you like) would seem to me to be more interesting.

                David

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by David
                  Does magical=nonmechanistic? I think nonmechanistic is the key. If you don't overdose on philosophy, it is obvious that something that operates as a mechanism is not conscious.
                  That's not obvious at all.

                  Your trouble is not that you don't 'believe', it is that you can't entertain any non-standard ideas long enough to see where they take you. You tend to talk about 'mindons', but I think that is a mistake. Fundamental units of consciousness can't be like bosons or fermions - all basically identical members of their group - because that seems to lead back to a mechanism - at the very least, it is an extreme assumption.
                  So there is no mechanism to consciousness at all? How does it keep from being random, then?

                  Mechanism seems to be the problem here. There is Penrose's argument, and there is the whole problem with qualia. A mechanism that experiences a qualia seems like a paradox, because you can start dismantling it and asking which sub-portion is actually doing the experiencing ..... AI is a mechanism, and it too seems to run into problems.
                  So now you're saying that not only can't consciousness have a mechanism, but you can't dismantle it, either. That means the full-blown human consciousness must be a fundamental existent. I'd need some evidence to believe that, but if it doesn't have a mechanism nor can it be dismantled, then I doubt it can have supporting evidence, either.

                  Even if you don't agree the evidence is compelling, it is surely worth thinking 'what if' for more than one or two sentences!
                  I'm happy to think "what if" for longer than two sentences, as long as you don't insist on "what if ... and that's consciousness ... and that's the end of the story."

                  Thinking about the properties of genuine non-mechanistic consciousness (free floating if you like) would seem to me to be more interesting.
                  I can't conceive of what a nonmechanistic consciousness would be like, so you'll have to enlighten me. After all, it doesn't have a mechanism nor can it be dismantled ... how do I conceive of it? Where does the conception go? All I can do is think "free-floating human mind" and then make sure I don't try to go anywhere with it.

                  ~~ Paul

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X