DrmDoc

I agree; but why, in many cases, declare one's belief needlessly in a hostile environment? In other words, why test your faith if you're convinced of its validity? My perception is that testing suggests some seed of non-belief exist within believers that isn't satiated by their faith. If the faithful is truly confident in their faith, why expose your faith to challenge if not to prove something to yourself that shouldn't require proof?

Perhaps, but all they required was trust in their years of investigation and hard work. Trust that their material investigations, evidence, and reproducible experiments would produce results consistent with their prior experiments, contemporaneous objectives, and future aerial expectations. By definition, faith isn't founded in what science consider materially tangible or reproducible. Faith is having belief or trust without any basis in investigative, tangible, or reproducible evidence or fact--if faith was otherwise, it would be science. I began this discussion as a way to explore what drives people of faith to science discussion sites where they would likely find and confront views and opinions overwhelmingly opposite and, often, hostile to their own. Increasingly, I'm of the opinion that it maybe a type of "Daniel in the Lion's Den" complex; wherein, the faithful confront overwhelming odds to fortify their spiritual ideas. If true, their pursuits in this way suggests an effort to abate some measure of personal fear and insecurity they may hold about their beliefs. Here, I believe, is where some of the faithful may come to prove their piety to themselves.

How depressing to find the people you talk to outside your home are not as smart by some measure of your own expectation. Smart people say and do what appears to be thoughtless and dumb things but that doesn't necessarily suggest low intelligence, IMO. What Watson says and believes regarding the ethnic basis of intelligence doesn't suggests he's dumb, just misinformed by his personal bias and interpretation of what he perceives as evidence. IDK, perhaps what may be true for Watson might be true for you. As to whether I'm insane, that seems to be a discussion best suited for our Speculation Forum rather than here in Science News.

Either that or he's trolling.. Trolling.

What people and by what measure? What is the basis your opinion?

Watson's clearly racist theories, supposedly based on his genetics and intelligence test perspective, is a prime example of how a scientist's social bias--perhaps a product of his era many decades ago--influences and hinders his investigation and acceptance of thoroughly researched and generally accepted evidence in science contrary to whatever support he endorses. Humanity, regardless of skin pigmentation or geographical origin, share an equal capacity to learn, anticipate, and innovate, which I believe are truer measures of intelligence.

Hello All, I'm going to open a can of worms here with what the science suggests about the dreaming brain and how it might relate to near-death (NDE) and out-of-body (OBE) experiences. If I recall correctly, it was Michel Jouvet's decerebration experiments in the late 1960s that suggested no activity occurs cortically without a subcortical neural connection. Although the goal of his experiments were to determine the neurophysiological mechanisms of dreaming, the lack of spontaneous neural activity in the cortex without a subcortical neural link was significant in that it suggests all brain activity is a result of subcortical stimuli, which appears to confirm and conform to the suggested hierarchal nature of brain evolution, wherein, the functionality of relatively recent brain and neural developments are dependent on the function of earlier developments in our brain's evolution. Now, if I've laid the proper foundation for this speculation correctly, Jouvet's experiments appear to suggest that, at the very least, cortical activity is a response to subcortical stimuli, which suggests the possibility that hallucinatory aberrations such as NDE and OBE are indeed responses to stimuli. As I understand the dreaming brain, dreams are how our waking brain interprets what it believes it experienced during its sleep process and amid those occurrences of cognition and perception arising from our brain's metabolic activities and processes in sleep. Both NDE and OBE occur amid an unconscious state we might equate with dreaming and, if true, then both NDE and OBE are interpretations of what our unconscious brain believes it is experiencing. Consider, could NDE, for example, be how our dying brain interprets subcortical stimuli suggesting that it's experiencing death...as proceeding to a place or state where other deceased individuals have gone or, possibly, reside?

When humans develop a means or method that is more efficient at filtering or removing interstitial cell waste from our brain than that provided by millions of years of brain evolution. By relative volume of our total body weight (about 5%), our brain is the largest consumer of our overall energy uptake (about 20%). That sizable uptake produces cell waste that must be removed from the brain for it to function efficiently. Sleep, as the least active state of brain function, has evolved as the most efficient state for cell waste removal. NREM, specifically, is that state when our brain produces little to no cell waste. During NREM, our brain volume shrinks about 6% as its ventricles widen to facilitate the process of extracellular waste removal (Glypmhatic System). If we think more clearly, have better concentration and memory after a good sleep, it's because our brain functions better when unobstructed by the byproducts of its metabolic processes. Therefore, insomnia and lack of proper sleep is very much like physical constipation and all the deleterious connotations and brain effects that implies.

Apologies for this delayed response. Although our dreams may seem profoundly significant, dreaming isn't the most significant aspect of the sleep process. Actually, what occurs before and after each cycle of dreaming is more important to brain health and mental acuity than understanding what your dream experience or content may signify. Wakeful brain activity, which is both consciousness and dreaming, requires energy that produces cell waste. For our brain to function efficiently that waste must be removed, which is what occurs more efficiently during the sleep process when the brain is not dreaming. We experience several cycles of dreaming that increase in length as the sleep process progresses. During the earlier cycles of this process, we experience longer stages of non-dreaming (NREM) sleep as our brain works to remove the extracellular waste produced by wakeful brain activity. Dreaming cycles are shorter during this period as sort of a neural test of our brain's sustain connectivity after each period of waste removal. This connectivity test effectively increases blood flow and oxygen to the brain, which arouses our brain's cognitive and perceptual centers. Our dreams are a narrative of what our brain believes it is perceiving during these periods of cognition and perception. Although you do not believe you were stressed when you were experiencing your lucid dreams, your dreams suggest that you were. Understand that dreams are unconscious interpretations of experience; therefore, they are interpretation of experiences that may not have reached your conscious awareness...like being stressed and not being consciously aware that you were.

If I'm not too late to this discussion, definitively a lucid dream wherein you experienced an awareness of being within a dream. To understand your experience it's best to know that all dreams arise from activations in the brain associated it's metabolic needs during sleep. Our brain consumes about 20% of our total energy uptake, which is a continuous process even while we sleep. These brain activations in sleep involve the same cognitive centers we use to navigate our conscious experience of physical/material reality. Therefore, dreaming is a type of wakefulness or altered state of consciousness amid sleep. The distinction in the brain between dreaming and true consciousness involves a distinction between the sort of stimuli or sensory information our brain receives and processes while in its divergent states of consciousness. All dreams, including lucid dreaming, are a response to stimuli our wakeful brain amid sleep seek to interpret. Therefore, dreams and everything you experience within them are interpretations of stimuli that you perceive when your brain arouses amid sleep to service its metabolic needs. In understanding what your lucid dream experience may signify, you should consider what sort of stimuli your sleep brain appears to be interpreting. Focusing on the overall context of your dream, you were trying to escape a state or condition that you knew wasn't real or reality. Was it, perhaps, a reflection of some social or mental state or condition you were experiencing around that time a year ago?

You won't find the support or insight, you obviously want or need, at this or any science discussion website or, for that matter, any website. You should discuss your concerns in person with a qualified professional who can identify, understand, and address your very apparent--to me at least--needs. I hope this helps.

Science can't prove anything; however, with clearly defined and approved parameters and references in science, I think it can provide a methodology whereby evidence can be investigated or found for the existence of "God or afterlife". Wouldn't a more interesting question be what experiment would we personally designed to provide definitive evidence in science for the existence of god(s)? Then we might at least be aware at which point in our own experience we would begin to suspect or accept the existence of some omnipotent intelligence.

I couldn't agree more, consciousness "is only 'uniquely human' if we define it by criteria which only humans can attain." It isn't unique, consciousness is merely the quality or level of awareness suggested or expressed by the behavioral responses of a species to stimuli.

Sen. John McCain was one of only two Republicans in recent memory whom I felt showed an uncommon measure of integrity for an American politician. The other was Sen. Arlen Specter. Sadly, I fear, we shall not see the likes of such men in American politics ever again, which is probably why I have such great hope for those women who have shown tremendous courage in choosing to serve our government. This is not to suggest that women are incorruptible, it's just time for a major social shift in our governing given the status of our current male leadership, which is extraordinarily disgraceful--IMO.

I read that article and a fascinating find it was indeed!

Perhaps this will assist your inquiry: Somatic illness, hypnotic suggestion, psychogalvanic reflexes, pseudocyesis, and the placebo effect are just some of the myriad of evidence in science for our powerful mind/body connection. I recall a video in my youth where a person under hypnosis experienced skin redness and blistering when given the suggestion that her hand was emersed in boiling water instead of water that was actually room temperature. I've mentioned all this so that you might not jump to supernatural conclusions, as DrP suggests, and consider or investigate more rational causes for your injuries amid sleep. Barring causes within your sleep environment, consider the possibility that your injuries were a somatic response to your dream experiences.

As it concerns faith, I think science has a firm grasp on what's happening. As it may concern the paranormal, the evidence provided through real scientific methodology has, IMO, shown the paranormal or supernatural to be quite normal and not so super. The evidence for what "is happening" has been consistently ordinary and explainable. Regardless, some of us still cling to the child-like hope for something more magical to our existence that just being alive.

If a fear of lost credibility discourages our investigation, then we obviously need to develop tougher skin to become successful scientists. Also, I don't think much of the opinions of individuals who follow the crowd and dismiss a subject a woo just because everyone say it is. I esteem individuals who demonstrate a firm grasp of a subject that's clearly rooted in their personal investigation or study of the relevant facts. My perspective of faith, similarly, is unbiased by the crowd and based on my own investigation of the available evidence pro, con, and personal. Unfortunately, impartial and open-minded study of the paranormal hasn't as yet uncovered incontrovertible evidence for the paranormal.

If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science. Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.

Indeed, in Casino Royale Sellers played the character Evelyn Tremble, a baccarat master hired to pose as James Bond as portrayed by David Nivens. A funny addition was Woody Allen who played Jimmy Bond, James' villainous nephew.

Peter Sellers, primarily because he was a brilliantly funny actor...IMHO.

Your response and tag here suggest to me that you are a person of faith who has thrown him or herself into this lion's den of scientific discussion. Why does a person of faith seek unwelcoming environments--such as a science discussion site--to engage in discussions of faith with staunch "non-believers"? Is it done in defense of your faith or is it some hopeful evangelical effort? Perhaps it's mostly about your own insecurities rather than some altruistic effort. I guess we'll know for sure should you ever respond to this or any of the above posts.

Therefore, your idea of faith involves self deification. Although it isn't an original notion, the idea of deifying one's self draws power from belief alone rather than any real or tangible support. Indeed, IMO, this idea is a mental placebo because its basis isn't supported by anything other than belief. It's a sugar pill that can imbue believers with an empowering, albeit, false sense of self.

Wait, what? Oh, I see...self is the higher power? Therefore, self realization is believing in self as the higher power at the center of one's reality?

If I now understand correctly, belief in a higher power is essential to your idea of faith because believing in something greater than self gives meaning to our reality and self realization. This idea, if I understand your view, gives meaning by compelling us to be or become something greater than what we think we are. Therefore, your idea regards a type of personal mental mantra for life that's driven solely by belief rather than anything particularly tangible. I think its human nature to believe in something greater than self, we are born into this world helpless and reliant on parents who are far greater and more powerful than we are at birth. Although most of us eventually mature into our own and leave our parents for our own life and family, many of us remain psychologically dependent on the enveloping feelings of being cared for and guided by a parental force, a force greater than self. Perhaps in this we might understand faith and why so many of us have it.