Inception. Could it happen?

I am currently in a debate with a fellow named Raymond ( He uses a alias). This is how it begins.
Nigel
Just watched Inception and all I can say is Mind = Blown.
Strelok if you actually think about it, it isn’t. But all the stuff or 85 percent of the stuff in it is actually true.

*
      o
        Yesterday at 5:41pm · Like
* He further reinforces this with this statement.
* Actually. How are you to know if it could happen if it cannot has never happened before or that you know of? Just because the mediorce mind of a 14 year old has experienced a tiny fraction of what life has to offer has not experienced somet...hing in his stage of life doesn't mean other people haven't or never will. Especially when all they think about is COD. 85 percent does not emcompass that. But things mentioned in it are not unheard of. Just not ordinary. Expand your thinking dumbass.
  These things happen in perspective
* I reply in kind
* "How are you to know if it could happen if it cannot has never happened before or that you know of?" Because my friend of a little thing called common sense.

  It seems illogical to me that people can intercept other people's dreams in order ...to retrieve information. So is there any scientific proof that shit like people going into other peoples dreams and stealing ideas (which is the main part of the story in Inception and therefore must be part of your 85% because it is what 100% of what the movie is based on)(btw where did you get that statistic?) that you can show me?

  If so i retract my statements and offer an apology. If you cannot, please in future keep your insane and ludicrous ideas in your head. Those opinions should be like your penis, do not try and shove them down peoples throats.

  Also you ignorant ass,
  this statement

  "a 14 year old has experienced a tiny fraction of what life has to offer has not experienced something in his stage of life doesn't mean other people haven't or never will. Especially when all they think about is COD."

  How the fuck do you know as a fact that all 14 year olds who have "experienced a tiny fraction of what life has to offer" only think of COD? And continuing from that point how do you know that those 14 year olds have only experienced a tiny fraction of what life has to offer? Do you know all of them personally or are you just making a general assumption and being the ignorant ass you usually are?

so whos right?

I would tend to agree with you - dreams just don’t work the way they are portrayed in Inception. But what’s the deal with the fish obsession?

huh? where does it mention fish?

Cod. What about haddock?

LOL @ fish…

For the real question, it depends on how specific you’re getting.

Here’s where we are now in regards to dream knowledge.

People can lucid dream. For some it comes naturally, for some it can be taught, and some people just aren’t any good at it. It’s like any other skill - it takes practice and effort, but it can be done. People lucid dreaming can communicate with the outside world through fMRI tech or by responding to stimulus with certain pre-ordained signals like rapid blinking. Lucid dreams are generally remembered better upon awakening, and often are more logical and orderly than normal dreams.

Dreams do NOT run in faster time than reality. That has been pretty solidly debunked in a set of experiments where they had dreamers and lucid dreamers count the seconds of their dream by blinking. All of the participants were blinking in actual seconds.

What most people accept (it is hard to prove) is that dreams progress faster because they skip all the in between and boring bits of real life. In other words, you get on a train, and then you’re immediately getting off at your destination. You go into a restaurant and are immediately at your table eating. The inbetweens are filled in by your mind, and you don’t notice them because your logic center is asleep.

On that point, dreams are weird as shit, and not anywhere as logical or coherent landscapes as Inception paints. People (usually) have their logic centers deactivated as a regular part of sleeping, so when you dream, you just accept whatever flows by as totally normal.

(there’s a good thread in Cafe about dreams as well - lots of good points)

Generally speaking, most people have learned that if they die in dreams, they tend to wake up. It has not been scientifically proven that I am aware of, but it’s a common enough “trope” (another one is the naked or lost in school before a test, another is stress-related; teeth falling out or rotten) - so many people dream those dreams and report having them that it’s simply accepted as a common dream theme.

On a personal note, dying in dreams is how I learned to lucid dream. (I didn’t want to have nightmares, so when I found myself in one, I just killed myself off. Eventually I got to where I could control the dream and keep the nightmares from forming, and from there on to where it’s like a big sandbox to play around in.)

As for implanting or removing ideas from dreamers, that’s a little hairy.

We know that it is possible to communicate with “locked-in” people (people stuck in a state where they are not able to move or access their body, but are awake and conscious) with fMRI. The one I’m remembering is a lady who was scanned and they could look at the active parts of her brain and see that she was imagining playing tennis, and then imagining swimming, because different parts lit up with each scenario. There was another where they asked a gentleman to construct a mental scene of his home and walk through it, and they could tell roughly where he was in that process through the same scanning techniques.

It is very expensive, time-consuming, hard as hell to interpret, and irradiates the patient in question, which really isn’t all that lovely. I don’t know that it has been done to anyone in a REM state, but based on people who don’t have their muscular and nervous systems shut down properly when they are asleep, we do act out our dreams (think all the sleepwalkers/eaters/sexers/drivers!) so it would make sense that they also would be apparent to a detailed brainscan.

As for implanting info, the closest analogue I can think of is hypnosis, and research on hypnosis isn’t my thing. All I can say is that from what I’ve seen hypnosis seems to work better with feelings, cravings, and physical hangups than for actual ideas and thoughts.

Shared dreaming is not possible today, at least not in the Inception sense. People can have shared experiences in the luminal state (when you’re in that drifty-half-asleep state right before you drop off or wake up), or in drugged states. In the cases I know of, the dreams are “shared” by the participants essentially narrating what’s going on and their brains incorporate both narratives (again, logic centers are out, so it totally makes sense!) into a seamless whole.

Lastly, people don’t fall asleep and instantly dream. Dreaming is actually one of the last sleep states you get to. One exception - if you take people and let them sleep, but wake them every time they get to REM to keep them from dreaming, they go a little nutso AND when they fall asleep in a REM-deprived state, they start hitting REM first. It appears to be extremely important to our mental state to experience regular dreaming.

So, Inception? Neat idea, based on some real science, sadly not really possible with today’s tech.

However - technology and the study of dreams is a really hot field right now. People are beginning to realize how important it is to humans, and how little we know scientifically about it. In the course of research and developing designer drugs to improve and help our dreams, we may find something that lets people share dreamstates, or to induce dreaming in someone artificially. It’s not that far-fetched.

What is far-fetched is the actual act of intruding into someone else’s dream, or importing someone else into your own dreams, with both of you remaining in a semi or totally lucid state. As far as I know, that’s still in the realm of utter science fiction.

Oh sheebus. That totally skipped my mind, I’m a 14 year old boy things like that automatically translate to call of duty in my head and doesn’t go through any kind of “proofreading”.

I’m having serious trouble parsing your initial post. I get that you’re asking about the idea of controlled dreams (like in Inception), and that you’re relating part of a conversation, but it’s kind of all over the place and I can’t pull a coherent question out.

One thing you might try is to organize conversations like they’re in a play. For example:

Me: “I think Inception blah blah blah”
Friend: “Oh yeah, well blah blah blah”
Me: “Then how do you account for blah?”

And so on.

It’s also OK to edit conversations for comprehensibility. For example:

“Actually. How are you to know if it could happen if it cannot has never happened before or that you know of? Just because the mediorce mind of a 14 year old has experienced a tiny fraction of what life has to offer has not experienced somet…hing in his stage of life doesn’t mean other people haven’t or never will.”

Could maybe be reworded as:
“How could you know what may or may not have happened. You’re only 14 and haven’t experienced much.”

People on these boards tend to highly value clear and grammatically correct writing. You’ll get better responses if you take a little more time to edit your posts and make it clear what your central question is.

Could inception happen? Maybe. Maybe it’s happening right now. But I don’t care.

Don’t fourteen year old boys think about fish nowadays? I know I did - all the time.

  • do four teen yr. - old boys re-ally type like . this?

…?

Only when they’re not thinking about fish.

Sorry, KevinShi, I’m not being cruel, but as has been said, your OP is almost incomprehensible. Why don’t you start a new thread with a rewritten OP, and we can all begin again.

EDIT: Sorry, this came up in a search and I didn’t realise it was a few days old.

I’ve had a go at subbing the OP:

My friend Raymond and I have been talking about the film Inception.

Raymond said, “All the stuff or 85% of the stuff in it is actually true.” He added that we can’t know whether it could happen, even though it hasn’t happened that we know of. We’re 14 and haven’t experienced very much, and other people could have greater and wider experiences than we do. Especially since all we think about is cod (nb possibly Call of Duty). He conceded that the figure probably wasn’t 85%, but that some things mentioned in the film are not unheard of – they’re just not ordinary.

I told him it seemed illogical that people can intercept other people’s dreams to retrieve information. As I asked him, is there any scientific proof that things that happened in the film are possible? Especially people going into other people’s dreams and stealing ideas.

We called each other a few names, but that is the general gist of the question. What does the message board think?

I thought it meant “cash on delivery”.

No…wait… wasn’t it Call Out the Devil?

I know grammar is not the OPs strong point, but how do you accidentally type the word “something” as “somet…hing”?

A belated welcome to the Dope. A couple of remarks regarding writing style (for use around here, even if you can’t be bothered to do it elsewhere):

When reproducing dialog, clearly mark which statement is attributed to which person. A bullet point-style asterisk doesn’t cut it.

When naming a title, AT LEAST capitalize the initial letters of each significant word.
Example: Call of Duty
Better: Call of Duty
Notice that “of” is not capitalized. If you want to go with just initials, try CoD.

Also, how whack is it that we have TWO fourteen-year old boys with “Shi” in their names?

Yes, I was thinking “cash on delivery” as well. I guess that probably dates me. Do they even do that anymore?

I haven’t seen Inception yet, so I can’t comment on whether it could happen, but it stands to reason that if it’s not a documentary or ‘based on actual events’, it should be obvious that it’s a fictional story. Hell, even if it is ‘based on actual events’, it should still be looked at as mainly fiction. That’s Hollywood for ya.

This is interesting. I’ve always believed all the words in a title should be capitalized. ‘The Life Of An Elephant’. Am I wrong?

In an effort to help make this thread make some sense, I’m moving it, from IMHO, to Cafe Society in the hope that it will live long and prosper as a movie discussion.

Not per se. But neither is it essential to capitalize some shorter words. Have a look at some of the comic strip titles here. I don’t know how the style manuals characterize the shorter, non-capitalized words in a title. “Incidentals,” perhaps. I always treat the issue as a matter of personal preference, but with a tendency to attempt to maximize clarity.

ETA: P.S. (@ Ellen Cherry) Is The Life of an Elephant a movie?