So? Lots of people dream they’re falling. Does that mean they were falling?
That’s not "all caps’.
Thats one word in caps for emphasis.
THIS IS ALL CAPS, SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
I have no idea what you are babbling about.
Good grief NO!
Consider the people that believe we have not been to the moon.
The physical evidence of moon rocks returned, photos and videos taken on the Moon, laser retroreflectors left on the moon that can be tested by anyone with a well-funded highschool science class… Still fails to convince them.
And this is for a matter that would have very little impact on their personal lives whether true or false.
Now you want to convince them that their religion is false, when changing that belief would invalidate a very large part of their life and everything they believe about the afterlife? By using significantly less accessible data than exists for the Moon landings?
Think of time as a frozen hourglass (sand doesn’t fall as we watch) where the past is above, the future is below, and this spacetime point ==> ***** <== at the neck is here-and-now. Every grain of sand represents a space-time event. Here-and-now is the product of all past events and can generate any of the possible future events. Forget the future right now; just consider that traveling to the past requires backtracking all the past events that produced here-and-now. Good luck with that.
Of course, interfering with (like observing) any past event will change the present, likely sending us to an alternate universe. I hate when that happens.
Muhammad dreamed he flew to Jerusalem, which makes it a Muslim holy city. Oy.
My cousin believes her dead infant is in Jesus’ arms. Shall I try to convince her that it ain’t so? I think not.
This is not correct. Can you tell me what is occurring right at this very instant on Gliese 581c? Is it even a meaningful question? What about right this moment on Third and Hill St in Hannibal Missouri? No, the present is not a precise nexus, it is an indistinct, amorphous some-time that loses meaning as the distance value (separation) increases. Events elsewhere may in fact be happening right now, or they may have actually happened a while ago, or pretty soon.
This is not established fact, it is supposition. The universe has shown itself to be somewhat imprecise. We will let you know more as soon as the time machine has been debugged. Do you happen to have some spare [sup]240[/sup]Pu lying about that we can borrow, to get it up and running?
Babbling? You find two six word sentences incomprehensible?
You wrote:
Now, I presume by these words you meant one of two things:
First possibility: You see “small mystical fire demons” in a real world place while in a mental state that you can be confident based on objective evidence is reliable and not hallucinatory. Which is to say, you have the small mystical fire demons on video.
Second possibility: People only see this stuff while in an altered state/high on prayer/high on drugs/daydreaming/nightdreaming/dreamdreaming.
My working theory is that you meant the second possibility - you weren’t saying that there’s a shred of objective evidence these fever dreams are real, but rather you were arguing that they might have objective reality because you think that when lots of different people and cultures are having fever dreams they’re seeing the same visions. In other words, you think that the fact that multiple people have similar dreams that that is evidence that the dreams are based on something objective.
But if that were true, it would go for other shared dreams too. Like falling - I gather that’s lots more common than the specific hallucination you describe.
Also, just because two different people describe different things that you choose to describe by the shared label “small mystical fire creatures”, where do you get off claiming these are the same thing? Demons, salamanders, and fire demons aren’t described as looking anything alike. I could just as easily say that pintos and ferraris are both cars and thus are exactly the same thing as each other.
Yes, because somehow you got the idea I was saying people have similar dreams, which I did not and was not. Of course they would interpret them in a similar way if similar backgrounds.
My point was, if during a Peyote vision, you “see” little fire creatures, then your background would cause you to give the Shaman different names- “I see little demons” I see fire salamanders" “I see Shulawitsi”.
This was in response to your post * “This suggests strongly to me that while experiences happen, they are interpreted by the receiver in the context of the receiver’s beliefs.”*
Thus I agree that the hallucination would be *interpreted * in light of context of beliefs.
Where do you get from that *“So? Lots of people dream they’re falling. Does that mean they were falling?”. *
However, people do seem to see things outside of a altered state.
Based on everything I’ve heard about the subject, people have dreams and hallucinations about specific things relating to their belief system. It’s not personal interpretation of generic things, it’s them seeing things they specifically expect to see. With the obvious explanation being that their own minds are the source of it all, with the only other reasonable explanation being that all gods and spirits and hopping zombies are real simultaneously and are just very very careful not to reveal themselves to the wrong people.
I was thrown by the fact you were describing something that really isn’t happening as though it were - and the fact that your own description defied your interpretation of it. Nobody could look at a demonand mistake it for a salamander, and nobody could look at a salamander and mistake it for Shulawitsi.
It’s not as hard as you might think to get into enough of an altered state to see things that aren’t there. You noticed ‘daydreams’ in my list of possible hallucination sources, right? I’m not kidding. People are very unreliable witnesses.
I specified a here-and-now spacetime event, not something elsewhere-and-elsewhen with its own temporal hourglass to maneuver. So consider your own here-and-now. Regressing in time requires backtracking all space-time events that preceded and produced you. Good luck there.
All thoughts of reversed time are suppositions. Or suppositories. Yikes.
So your idea of time travel is that it requires unwinding the universe until it gets to the state it was in at the destination time? An interesting take on it, to be sure, but nonstandard.