Two Unusual Questions For The Atheists Here

[tonyrey]

Keeping my skeptic’s hat on, I guess that may be true if we exclude bad behavior like addictions, and if survival is about more than just bread alone. You may be on to something here.

Then you need to explain how every dream helps us to survive. A tall order!

 

[inocente]

Then you need to explain how every dream helps us to survive. A tall order!

I was thinking more on the lines that we wouldn’t dream at all if there wasn’t some underlying function that aids survival, whatever it may be.

The science is fascinating, although I’m ten years out of date. What was known is that dreaming is essential to health and we all dream (or at least go into REM sleep) around six times a night. But changes to our long-term memory are chemically suppressed while we’re asleep so we can only ever remember waking dreams.

From the way regions light up on MRI scans, dreaming may have something to do with rebalancing the neural networks. If that’s correct then dreaming is essential to learning, not by rearranging memories but by optimizing the way they are processed to help automate the whole business. The theme of any remembered dream is then just a fairly meaningless by-product, skeptically speaking.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

This is an argument from ignorance. You can’t say, “I can’t think of a good solution to my question; therefore, answer X must be correct.”

You’re just presuming your personal interpretation to be correct. What if a Wiccan came along and said, “She’s clearly dreaming of the Summerlands”? Or what if a Hindu came along and said, “She’s clearly dreaming of memories from a happy past life”?

Personally, since you asked, I think it’s likely that a child would dream about things that it’s seen and experienced: its mother, being fed, being in the womb, being changed, etc.

Sure, I guess.

I’ve seen animals dreaming (making little running motions in their sleep, etc.), so it’s not a terrible stretch to say that dreams are common to most living creatures with a certain level of brain development.

I’m sure it makes old ladies happy to say that infants are “dreaming of heaven,” but that’s hardly a good basis for drawing conclusions about the world.

Like I said before, I can countenance that, but I personally tend to disagree with that.

That last sentence was kind of “snarky,” wasn’t it? But, oh well…

Thank you for you (name removed by moderator)ut. Could be, actually, what you said. But I tend to disagree with that. But, you never know…

 

[tonyrey]

I was thinking more on the lines that we wouldn’t dream at all if there wasn’t some underlying function that aids survival, whatever it may be.

The science is fascinating, although I’m ten years out of date. What was known is that dreaming is essential to health and we all dream (or at least go into REM sleep) around six times a night. But changes to our long-term memory are chemically suppressed while we’re asleep so we can only ever remember waking dreams.

From the way regions light up on MRI scans, dreaming may have something to do with rebalancing the neural networks. If that’s correct then dreaming is essential to learning, not by rearranging memories but by optimizing the way they are processed to help automate the whole business. The theme of any remembered dream is then just a fairly meaningless by-product, skeptically speaking.

I now realise you’re using “survival” in a very broad sense, almost as a synonym for well-being.
There is evidence that some dreams are premonitions and others have religious significance.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I now realise you’re using “survival” in a very broad sense, almost as a synonym for well-being.
There is evidence that some dreams are premonitions and others have religious significance.

Correct, TonyRey.

 

[AntiTheist]

Like I said before, I can countenance that, but I personally tend to disagree with that.

Okay. On what grounds do you disagree with it, then?

See, either your disagreement is based on some kind of evidence, or it’s based on your personal preferences – how you prefer the universe to work.

I don’t think that preferences are a good way to decide what’s true and what’s not. Based purely on evidence – the fact that all creatures of a certain level of brain development have dreams, the fact that dreams appear to be the product of brain activity, the fact that there’s no good reason to think that 1) there is a metaphysical realm called heaven or 2) babies are dreaming of it – I think the probability that babies are dreaming of a metaphysical realm called heaven is so low that it’s not even worth considering.

If you’re going to disagree, either you have some kind of evidence to the contrary, or you’re just making stuff up because you want the universe to be the way you want it to be. And hey, there’s nothing wrong with that – I’m just pointing out that personal preference is a bad way to determine truth.

I’m not trying to be “snarky” here. Those are just the facts.

 

[inocente]

1. Most people do not accept the “Tabula Rasa” Argument/Theory anymore.

Skeptically, your niece is part of your extended family and you want her to survive. But even knowing that, you love her and want the very best for her. That is who we are – we can see ourselves clinically but internally our world as far more than nuts and bolts.

If I understand Locke and remove his metaphysics, you must teach her while doing your utmost to protect her from your own worldview and prejudices. You must give her the ability to question everything and reason out her own answers so she becomes her own person. That’s far easier said than done – how do you avoid indoctrinating her, particularly when it comes to everything you hold dear?

It comes down to this - when she is eighteen, you ask her why she thinks she smiled in her infant dreams. Would you like her answer to be “I was definitely dreaming of Heaven”? Or would you prefer “It could have been gas or exercising my face muscles or thinking of my mom”, then with a twinkle in her eye “or knowing you, maybe I was dreaming of Heaven”.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think that preferences are a good way to decide what’s true and what’s not. Based purely on evidence – the fact that all creatures of a certain level of brain development have dreams, the fact that dreams appear to be the product of brain activity, the fact that there’s no good reason to think that 1) there is a metaphysical realm called heaven or 2) babies are dreaming of it – I think the probability that babies are dreaming of a metaphysical realm called heaven is so low that it’s not even worth considering.

Your conclusion is based on your assumption that we are merely creatures with brains… Your notion of “evidence” is defective.

I think the probability that materialism is true is so low that it’s not even worth considering!

 

[AntiTheist]

your assumption that we are merely creatures with brains…

No, that’s not an assumption – that’s a conclusion drawn from evidence. Pay attention.

And besides, even if you could demonstrate that we’re more than “creatures with brains” (I suppose you think we’re spirits who control bodies like puppets or something), the OP’s argument is still an argument from ignorance, so this has nothing to do with the thread. So, stay on topic, as well.

 

[Dameedna]

I would suggest anything that she has experienced, inside or outside of the womb that feels good.

Some-one else gave a good list, and to me those are the most likely possibility.

But really we do not know.

But one thing we DO KNOW is children are born 100% narcisistic. If they are hungry the world is hungry, if they are happy the world is happy. This is not a “bad” thing, in the way that narcissisim is usually percieved.

It means being at one, with everything. No emotional seperation from the “other”.

Since “heaven” is described as being at one with God, IE at one with the source of everything, I don’t think it is a stretch as a believer to say that yes, she was experiencing, or dreaming about heaven.

That place where we are at one with all that surrounds us, no seperation at all, only exists in the womb, and just afterwards. After that, we have to wake up, and live as self-aware creatures that make ethical and moral decisions. But oh…to be at one with the world like a baby once again. What a delight.

I really don’t think we alway’s have to fight, us athiests and believers. We can find a common ground can’t we?

 

[inocente]

It means being at one, with everything. No emotional seperation from the “other”.

There are meditative techniques that bring us to right here right now. Just to sit under a tree with all our awareness on the sounds and sights around us and the feelings of our body. It takes practice to leave aside our memories, plans and worries, but it can be a real holiday as long as we don’t get too mystical. It gives a perspective, the old phrase was it keeps us grounded.

I really don’t think we alway’s have to fight, us athiests and believers. We can find a common ground can’t we?

Agreed, never yet found clones here no matter what the profiles say.

 

[tonyrey]

No, that’s not an assumption – that’s a conclusion drawn from evidence.

What** is** the evidence that a person consists solely of atomic particles?

And besides, even if you could demonstrate that we’re more than “creatures with brains” (I suppose you think we’re spirits who control bodies like puppets or something), the OP’s argument is still an argument from ignorance, so this has nothing to do with the thread.

So what has your argument to do with the OP?

 

[tonyrey]

And besides, even if you could demonstrate that we’re more than “creatures with brains” (I suppose you think we’re spirits who control bodies like puppets or something), the OP’s argument is still an argument from ignorance, so this has nothing to do with the thread. So, stay on topic, as well.

It would be more to the point if you can explain how we are not biological puppets… Or if we are why we are responsible for what we choose to think and decide to act…

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

It would be more to the point if you can explain how we are not biological puppets… Or if we are why we are responsible for what we choose to think and decide to act…

That was basically what I was going to post in answer to him but you beat me to it. Good show.