If our brain can create dreams and we see them with closed eyes, THEN WHERE ARE WE?

If our brain can create a simulation, then are we in an experimental matrix?

>>40578944 (OP)
we are everywhere, we are the universe which is our mind

the simulation is you, your human identity "separated" from your eternal self

>>40578944 (OP)

The idea that the brain "creates" dreams,
is an assumption.
It is not a proven fact.
Have you considered the possibility,
that instead of your brain creating a dream,
your brain is simply accessing a different reality?

Let me let you my perspective on this topic.
How many gigabytes does Red Dead Redemption require? It requires like 150GB of data.

Now, tell me, how many Gigabytes of data would your brain require to host an entire simulation of reality, so real, that you feel it, you smell it, you touch it, you see it, you hear it,
hosting your own life within it, hosting the seeming lives of others within it aswell, hosting the physics of a whole world within it...

Are you following me?

So, obviously, this would require an astronomical amount of data for your brain to be storing, LET ALONE, processing.

During your experience of a dream, your brain is processing so much data, related to your experiencing in your dream,
so,
this means that ON TOP of the data required to merely HOST the dream,
your brain would also be requiring power and data to simply allow your EXPERIENCING of that hosted dream.

When you consider the logic I've presented,
it becomes clear,
that the argument that our brains create and host the dreams we experience while asleep,
is far more unlikely,
than the possibility that our brains are merely accessing an external source of information,
AKA, an external reality, or maybe, an externally hosted simulation of reality.

Does this make sense?

I can address your questions later,
but I wanted to start with this,
since you opened your dialogue by stating that our brains "create" our dreams.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naoSdrzqh-M

We(atoms n shit) are a vibe or a group of vibes, a frequency, a signal of information.. so yeah.. what the other anon said applies too

>>40579015
arent you a pedo?

>>40579115
I'm not.
You might be taking me to be someone else.

>>40578944 (OP)
You're very close friend, Maybe this will help.
Can you see God from the outside?

>>40579015
How do you know your brain is simulating an entire reality and its even hoating others? It could just simulating your personwl experience, which would require far less data... magnitudes so. Do you know how much data can be stores in a single piece of dna? A simple search says 1 gram of dna can store 215 petabytes, 1 gram. I think we can simulate our personal experience... and maybe even for others too, that's a lot of data, let's not forget there may even be high-level compression techniques to keep data sizes smaller than what we know.

>>40579334

You took what I said the wrong way.

Let me say it simpler.

Model 1:
Our brain is creating a dream.
Our brain is experiencing that created dream,
during the same time,
that our brain is experiencing the creation.

That model, is quite wild,
because,
not only is our brain hosting the experience,
but it is also hosting, the experiencING.

So, to me, that is some high level data.

I think it is more likely,
that our brain is merely accessing the experience,
and then obviously, hosting the experiencING,
in the same way that our brain, while awake,
is hosting our experiencING,
but not hosting the experience itself.
The experience is external,
the experiencING is internal.

This is my model, for how dreaming works.

I consider that dreams are external data,
that we are merely experiencing,
in the same way that our life here on earth,
is external data, that our brains are experiencing.

Consider how crazy it would be,
if our brain is both simulating sense objects,
and simulating the SENSING of those sense objects, simueltaneously.

That is SO much data,
and for WHAT?
Why would the brain be putting so much energy towards that?

Now, when we look at the sleeping body...
is it expending shit loads of energy?
NO, IT IS NOT.
The sleeping body is literally using LESS energy, than the waking body is.
That is basically suggesting to me,
that our dreams are not being hosted by our brains. Our dreams are only being experienced by our brains, but the dreams are being hosted by something else; maybe they are even actual realities that our senses are tuning into.

>>40579334

I read your dialogue more carefully,
so I'd like to add something else,
hopefully closer to what you were asking me.

The reason I assume that the brain is hosting an experience AND hosting an experiencING, is because...

When our eyeballs detect light data (sense-obects), we convert that into sensing.

So, I see dreams as the exact same.
Our senses are picking up sense-objects.

That is the actual experience of a dream, true?

In a dream, you are seemingly sensing sense-objects.

So, in my perspective, in the model 1 which suggests the brain creates the dream, our brain is hosting both the sense-objects (in a simulation) and the sensing of those sense-objects.

My question is,
WHERE is the light, that our eyes seemingly percieve, during a dream?
Does it come from inside of our heads?
Is there a tiny powered television screen within our heads, which hosts sense-objects?

When we see the real world, we are seeing actual sense-objects, so what differentiates are percieving of the real world, from our percieving of a dreamworld?

In experience, both scenarios share an identical framework, cus', in experience, both in real life, and in a dream, we consider everything to be real, and to have a consistent logic (or physics).

When you wake up from the dream,
you consider that the logic and physics of the dream was nonsense, in comparison to the logic and physics of this real life,
but,
while experiencing the dream,
the logic and physics of that dream is consistent within itself, to the dreamer,
so the dreamer takes the dream to be reality,
during the duration of the dream.

This is why I'm assuming that the brain is both hosting the sensing and the sense-objects,
cus', I assume the same thing for real life.
I assume that real life is an external world of sense-objects, which I am sensing.
To argue otherwise, would be solipsism, the belief that only one's own mind exists, and all else is illusion.

I'd rather not be talking to myself here Lol.
Ya'll exist.

>>40579355
Share more insights im following your thoughts and i get it but I want more time to ponder, if you have more thoughts feel free to share ill think a bit more and give a better reply in a while

>>40579015
>Have you considered the possibility,
>that instead of your brain creating a dream,
>your brain is simply accessing a different reality?
I started having better dreams in parallel with waking up to what looks kind of like a faint projection on a wall. Light blue or white so far. The image varies but it's been similar to a spiral galaxy a few times. It rotates, sometimes faster than others, either direction, and flickers like a 16fps film. It fades away within 30 seconds or so. I believe it's divine transfer of dream content, because it's far from the only magic I've seen.

>>40579355
I really think our bodies can use that much data the more I think about it, it dont seem like it would be that much data that youre streaming. We consume less energy while we sleep because the rest of the body is sleeping but the brain is still running, the brain consumes a large portion of the bodies energy. I dont know if think its definitely us creating and simulating the dreams its just local, and there is no light hitting the eyes were basically watching a TV like you said.

>>40579412
Remove the 'i dont know if think' mobile is hard in landscape

>>40579382
Can you look at your own eyes without a mirror?

>>40579445

No, you can't.

I have a question for you, though.

Can you even be sure that it is your own eyeballs which are seeing?

When you look at your eyeballs, in a mirror, they become sense-objects, which are being sensed. So, does that truly prove that the eyeballs are seeing? I don't think it does lol.

In the teachings of the Gurus,
that which is ultimately sensing,
is self,
and the body is also just sense objects which are perceived, therefor, they can not be that which is perceiving (or, that is the logic anyway, of the Guru's proposition).

The brain uses the body; if you have eyes, the brain can use their off-side by selecting them and causing that physical imbalance. Barkons mind computer is the art of using the brain using the body to perform computation. First, select the eyes and cause an imbalance pointlessly as a test and watch your body move minus that selection. Now select the head in a special way so that there was computation. It is that shrimple.

>>40578944 (OP)
>If our brain can create dreams
Brains don't exist. No material object exists. There is only consciousness of content of the macrocosmic mind by the microcosmic mind.

>>40579469
The eyeballs arent seeing...you arent using your real body in your dreams, its all the brain

>>40579469
Ah, I can see you're clearly ready for a more advanced path.
How many ways of sensing do you have?
How can you tell which are compound senses and which are base senses?
What the minimum possible number of senses you could have and still be in reality?

>>40579490

I get what you're saying,
the eyeballs aren't seeing while we are dreaming,
it's all just in our brains,
BUT, how do you explain rapid eye movement during dreaming?
Also,
are the eyeballs that which is seeing, at all?
That is what I was getting at.
I was trying to suggest that our eyeballs aren't even responsible for sight, in any way,
they are only symbolic represensations of that which is actually seeing, but, that which is actually sensing and percieving, is something deeper, something primordial, something pure, and something non-physical, something that the Guru's call "Self", "God-self", "Ultimate Reality", "Parabrahman", or "Awareness".

>>40579477
What if externalizing yourself isnt the real answer?
I say this knowing full well that can be a useful helpful tool.

>>40579519

I'm going to answer you this question full on, from my actual truth lol.

Ultimately, I have only one single "ways of sensing", and that is pure awareness.
Within my ultimately singular awareness, which is actually what I fundamentally am, there are potentially infinite "ways of sensing", but all of those ways of sensing, come to one singular sensing, which is actually ultimate reality.

I am literally the fundamental reality,
and so are you.
In, this, we are the same, our only difference, is position. You are a point of awareness, and within you, there are senses, which behold sense-objects, but all of those senses, come to YOU, as a singular awareness, of those innumerable senses.

I am the same, we are both pure awareness, but, we both have separate minds, and we both have seperate locations. Our minds can not become one, nor can our positions become one. We are both actually eternally fixed in position. Neither of us has ever moved positions, ever. The energy which composes the sense-objects and the senses, moves within us, in our awareness, but our awareness does not move.

You are both a point, and a field.
We share the field, but we are seperate points.
The point, is your self.
The field, is our world, also known as, our heart, or, our body, even.
We share a body, we do not share a soul.
The soul, is the point, which is aware.
We are each a distinguished seperate point of awareness, but we each share a field of body, in which the energy of senses and corresponding sense-objects arises in. Ultimately though, all of the senses are illusions, and all of them come to a single sense, which is Awareness.

Another thing I'll add, is that each point of Awareness also has its own distinguished mind, and the mind is the voice of that particular point of awareness, announcing its existence; it's mind is basically it's voice.
Our point of Awareness (our Self), and our Mind, are eternally separate, but, the field of view which we are aware of, is shared.

It's got to do with bilingual coastlines

>>40579545
You're so close.
What if I told you the answer is five?

>>40579687

LOL.
Well, it isn't five.
Consider that you also sense thought.
How can your sensing of thought, be accomplished by your touching, seeing, smelling, hearing, or tasting?
If you'll accept 6 senses,
I'll be satisfied,
because it is at least a step deeper than 5 senses.
Can we have that middle ground?
Meet me higher than the mundane, please.
Or fuck off.
:P

>>40579711
What if six arises from five in agreement?

>>40579717

My friend.
I have personally tasted with my eardrum,
and I have touched with my vision.
I have been without body,
a pure point of perceiving,
where my mind arose,
before any other sense phenomena did.

So, from my perspective,
the sensing of thought is not arising,
from a combination of your 5 earthly senses in agreement with one another.

I can say these things tangentally.
Let me give you something more concrete, a more definitive challenge.

If it is your 5 senses in agreement which allows the perception of thought,
explain Hellen Keller lol.
That girl was born with only 3 senses,
yet, she was extremely intelligent.

So, do we need 3 senses in agreement, to give birth to the perception of thought? I don't think so. I'm considering it an additional sense, typically overlooked, because ironically, the deep thinkers, lack self awareness, they rarely consider the nature of thinking and the nature of thought (so caught up on the content of thinking, they go on ignorant to the contEXT of thinking).

Indulge in what I've said.
Nevertheless, I've said much higher earlier in this thread, if you give it space.

>>40578944 (OP)
We're kind of spread out. We are, fundamentally, a four pound chunk of fat. We're locked inside of a prison of bone and hallucinate reality as we pilot a magi-tech flesh mecha.
But we're also the billions of individual neurons in our chunk of fat. But we're also the collective flora and fauna within our meat suit, as a surprisingly large amount of our behavior is dictated by the health of the organisms within and on our body.
We're a collective organism. It's pretty cool. There is no one central piece that makes us, us. We need everything or we're left fragmented and incomplete.

>>40578944 (OP)
Define "we"
Are we a soul in a vessel?
Then the vessel isn't the all of our being, just a component.
In that framework, it's possible to view the brain as an organic computer. It processes information in an analogue and varied way, rather than the absolute binary (false) dichotomy of a silicon microprocessor.
Sometimes you can have a nice deep sleep and do a full physical recovery session, and you probably won't see your dreams.
But sometimes it may be necessary to process something more intensive and your brain runs a little quicker.
The higher the "clock speed" of your brain, the faster you process. This isn't a meme, brain wave frequencies are that clock speed.
Different parts of your brain will be loaded up with information too, if that's necessary.
At some point it may become necessary for your brain to use the visual cortex to process information in your sleep. That's when you start to see your dreams.

All of that is to the benefit of the pilot, the soul, the bit that you actually are within your body and without it.

>>40579757
A good attempt at a rebuttal, but 5 senses does not mean 5 physical senses.
If you want to go high, go low.
What is your sense of temporality?