my first lucid dream was like 0:36 ...I was flying and it felt like a roller coaster; people have told me not to get excited while Lucid dreaming but i was YELLING on the top of my lungs and i didnt wake up! When i landed the grass felt like Alpaca fur.... it was amazing!!
Well, technicially you cant become a God because in order to be a God you need to be able to create; which we cant - not even when dreaming.
Reason is because no matter how skilled you are at manifestations in lucidity, you are only drawing on what ever your mind has been exposed to in which is meshes all of that together to make whatever you expect/ imply to expect.
Hate to be pedantic but when it comes to things like this - a relatively new science- we MUST maintain qualitative statements
I can go to some remote village, completely undeveloped, fly a remote control helicopter over the village and hover, they'd interpret that to be some sort of spiritual experience.
What one perceives as God-like powers is irrelevant.
We dont *create* we manifest - big difference; one CREATES (absolutely nothing, to something - impossible in nature as we know it), the other manifests - draws on what is available.
Am I understanding you correctly: You declare his idea of "becoming like gods" in a dream as irrelevant, because in order to be a God you'd have to create things from nothing?
I don't really agree with your point of view. You seem to imply that in order be the creator of an Ipod, you must first create the Universe. Intelligence creates knowledge, technology and amazes me every day.
The Ipod was not "created" in the true meaning of the word.
I had a sandwich for lunch today; tuna.
Did I create the sandwich?
No I made the sandwich from 'components'; bread & tuna; both of which I never created.
Likewise the Ipod is made up of components which we manipulate to design, following various laws of physics within electronics, to make a portable, personal music device.
The Ipod was not created, it was made just like my sandwich.
I think you may have chosen for yourself a very limited view of the definition of the word "create". You seem to imply that Intelligence within the Universe can never create, because in order to do so, one must create the very components from which something new will be brought about. I could argue with you that it might be possible for future Intelligence to forge atoms from which new objects will be created, but I'm guessing even that will not satisfy you. (continued)
(cont) However, I think even with your definition of the word "create", humanity can still reclaim its title as "creators" with a little change in perception. What is the Universe? The Universe, by definition, is everything. I hope we can agree on that. The Universe is in a state of constant change. (cont)
(cont) Science has learned that the very fabric of our Universe is sizzling with subatomic particles that are continually being created out of the very vacuum of space, and continually being destroyed. This is in fact measurable, and multiple scientific experiments have been used to provide evidence for these claims (see the Cassimir effect). These virtual particles pop into existence in the vacuum, have a quantifiable effect and are interacting in very important ways with the Universe. (cont)
(cont) The Universe is in a constant state of creation. Science shows that heavier elements that compose everything we see today were forged within dying stars, that existed long before the earth was formed. If life emerged out of those components we can then understand that the very essence of every living being today is in truth older than life itself. (cont)
Descendants of life are not just in the Universe, we ARE part of the whole. As we may yet widen our perspectives of what we really are. You’re an entity composed of cells that have divided, evolved and multiplied over billions of years. You have not only been as you see yourself now, but your biological essence has, in fact, experienced the past as your individual parents and even those before them, recursively, all the way back to the very first life-form. But the story doesn't end there..
Your story goes back billions of years, to the guts of stars where your atoms were forged, all the way back to very first moment of time. 14 billion years ago you became. If this were the Universe's history, but not your own, everything that makes you would not exist otherwise.
The evolution of life and intelligence is but a brief cosmic step of a macro universal process. We call this Universal Evolution, or the evolution of Information on a universal scale (a process that is not limited to biological evolution, but one from which biological evolution emerged from). You are part of this process. From an intelligent, conscious perspective, we may have a role to play in this process like none before.
We look around us, and some have yet to realize who and what we are. Their amazing potential. To have had your essence forged inside the hearts of stars, to have evolved hands to feel and eyes to see, ears to listen. After nearly being eradicated by meteors that wiped us as dinosaurs off the face of the planet, we've had the ability to survive the toughest of ice ages, powerful droughts and dangerous moments of starvation. To have discovered fire and dreams.
To form ideas and reason about the world, becoming increasingly more aware of ourselves. To have looked into the past, to reason for the future. To have invented technology, to have inspired ourselves in each iteration, each generation...In our times, through physical expansion and accelerating intelligence, you, the Universe are exponentially becoming.
The Universe is creating things that never were before, not only in the vacuum of space, out of the void, but using its very essence.
We are surrounded by surmountable opportunities. We can bring about things never witnessed in our history. The Universe has found a way to reason about itself, and we are experiencing that new evolutionary step, one which does not seem to have any particular/singular point of importance, but one to which we can give value to as sentient beings, if we choose to.
From your point of view, we may be makers. But makers can create things that have emergent properties that did not exist before in nature. I really feel the question of whether makers are creators is mostly academic and as intelligence progresses, the line will blur.
Where we go from here is entirely up to us, because if we choose to, the creation in the Universe will no longer be driven by chance...but by choice. H+
Why is mankind not satisified with acknowledging that what we make is not the same as having created it. Why do we have such a selfish, pride-driven mind to fight for full credit in something we simply cannot claim. We can claim the idea but we are in no position to claim "creator" in the true definition of the word and its a shame that 'creator' has now become synonymous with 'maker' and 'inventor'. It all comes from reprobation against a personal God.
What the universe may be doing is an externality to our ability. Its inanimate versus animate (assuming that "Universe" is not synonymous to "God").
I cannot accept a spontaneous system because it implies utter independence of intrinsic purpose, reason and value; there is no cause-and-affect, just a mundane "happening" which is a stark contrast to every aspect of modern science today.
I dont want to get into a religious discussion here but its pretty obvious why such ideas are being fronted.
If the Universe is doing it (and I believe scientific evidence suggests it is), then it doesn't really matter if its inanimate versus animate, because from a macro perspective, we're simply part of the Universe that creates. There doesn't have to be a distinction between inanimate vs animate, if the Universe is seen as a whole, we're not beyond it. The Universe is bound to the laws of Nature, and if it can create, so do we.
But going back, I think you said something important: you say you cannot accept a spontaneous system. But right or wrong, the Universe is as it is, regardless of our belief or desire for it to be one way or another. Consider for a moment that you were to live in a Universe as I have proposed: Wouldn't it be better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring?
We invented language & created concepts, including "creation", by learning and observing the world around us. Concepts and languages change. We're not claiming the creation of the Universe, so I'm not sure why you find humanity to be selfish for cheering over the creation of things that never were before. Give your species some credit.
I may be wrong but I don't think you've really thought this through. You claim nothing can be "created" because one would have to create the essence in order for it to be a true creation ("In order to create an apple, you must first create the Universe.", right?) otherwise you'd just be a maker: (continued)
God by definition is the absolute everything, always existed and was never created. No matter where God were to create the Universe, since he was everywhere and everything, the Universe would be built upon the essence of God.
God could not create a Universe beyond itself, because doing so would negate his being everything. But, then God cannot be a creator, for the Universe would've been created from his very essence, he could not create from scratch, he simply built upon what existed, himself.
Thus, by your very logic and interpretation of the word, god would not really be a creator. He is a maker, just like us.
Now, as you can see, your interpretation of the word "create" even demotes your god to the lowly level of us mere mortals, the makers of progress. With your interpretation it appears impossible to be a "creator" in the purest of forms. So...if this is so, we now have a word that is meaningless because it cannot really be applied even to the creation of the Universe, and gods
Our minds have evolved to understand the world in this manner. I know this may seem counter-intuitive to you, heck, even I don't understand it, but it's not necessarily the way the Universe always works at the scale of the very small. Have you seen the "Delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment?
I stumble on you channel. I think that this is what I have been looking for. A little something to help me know when I'm dreaming. Do these techniques also help with astral projection?
Once you get decent amount of experience with lucidity you'll see how some perceive astral projection to be valid.
I've been practicing lucidity for almost 4 years now and had I not been self-analyzing everything I experience in dreams (lucid or not) I could easily present me experiences as justification of astral projection but I would have to ignore instances that invalidate the idea; aka lie.
I've been getting really close to lucid dreaming. Just the other night, I realized I was dreaming within the dream but it never occured to me to act on it, I just continued on with the dream. Anyone else ever have this problem? I can't seem to get past that point.
That happens a lot. But don't stress it out. Next time this happens, try something that wish you really could do. If you want to fly, try to run and jump, even if your chest hits the ground momentarily, don't doubt, in seconds you might suddenly be launched into the sky,
@AniCator Well that information isn't false. (Of course with the use of the lucidity institue's studies and website programmer) he practically did everything to bring lucidipedia to what it is today, and I think he has a right to credit himself.
For some reason I do find it a little suspect that Lucidipedia disappears from youtube for a very long time and then suddenly comes back to life when the movie 'Inception' becomes ridiculously huge. Are you trying to cash in? Naughty, naughty.
@COSMICSMI2LE That would be a fair enough statement if he wasn't charging money. The problem lies in the fact that he now does charge money for these new lectures and classes.
If you were passionate about lucid dreaming and found MASSES of people coming to you for help, even willing to pay if they are, would you not take the opportunity to expand your website and make it WORTH WHILE to help all these people rather than just side-lining your life to answer 100 repeating " OMG like, how do I WILD XO lol I try but I don't know??! :DDDD" pre-teen questions daily?
my first lucid dream was like 0:36 ...I was flying and it felt like a roller coaster; people have told me not to get excited while Lucid dreaming but i was YELLING on the top of my lungs and i didnt wake up! When i landed the grass felt like Alpaca fur.... it was amazing!!
ThePixieDance 1 week ago
1 person wen't in a lucid dream and had a terrible nightmare
TheUnknownD 2 weeks ago
Looks very Nice :P Looks Authentic and makes me want to watch a movie about it :)
ThePaquito001 1 month ago
Made on a Mac, I used the same template for something in english class haha
ohlovelywow 3 months ago
Haha, once i had a nightmare, woke up, decided not to record it because it was too scary, fell asleep, and there was the sequel.
ToaoFreda 5 months ago
what the hells up with her face at 0.43>
EliteSpartan663 9 months ago
@EliteSpartan663 she is turning into a cucumber
vodorf 8 months ago
@EliteSpartan663 shut the fuck up
gil12gamepro1 2 months ago
1 person had a nightmare.
vodorf 10 months ago 2
You create the world of the dream, you bring the subject into that dream and they fill it with their sub-conscience.
MrSuperSmashed 1 year ago 3
@MrSuperSmashed ....damn you INCEPTION! lol
Tehandpickid 1 year ago 2
OH DAMN, i hope some day (2012^^) everyone is making such great videos :D
Hellrun1 1 year ago
VERY NICE
angel925 1 year ago
is that what flying looks like?
anidude98 1 year ago
@anidude98
depends, its different for everyone.
I watch a lot of FPV plane videos and that has helped my flying experiences a lot.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
Absolutely love the trailer!! Great job, Tim!
Inspiring. :)
ashvata 1 year ago
Well, technicially you cant become a God because in order to be a God you need to be able to create; which we cant - not even when dreaming.
Reason is because no matter how skilled you are at manifestations in lucidity, you are only drawing on what ever your mind has been exposed to in which is meshes all of that together to make whatever you expect/ imply to expect.
Hate to be pedantic but when it comes to things like this - a relatively new science- we MUST maintain qualitative statements
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
We create worlds within. In many ways, some of us achieve within what many cultures would've considered godlike powers.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
Thats just misconception.
I can go to some remote village, completely undeveloped, fly a remote control helicopter over the village and hover, they'd interpret that to be some sort of spiritual experience.
What one perceives as God-like powers is irrelevant.
We dont *create* we manifest - big difference; one CREATES (absolutely nothing, to something - impossible in nature as we know it), the other manifests - draws on what is available.
We are incapable of creation on any level
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
Am I understanding you correctly: You declare his idea of "becoming like gods" in a dream as irrelevant, because in order to be a God you'd have to create things from nothing?
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
Even though its a dream world, whatever it is we do there, its not creation. Its manifestation.
On that basis it is not God-like because the power of God is not manifestation, its creation.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin You could consider it as a metaphore. Don't take it literally!
spike8742 1 year ago
@spike8742
metaphors only work when the meanings of the words used are correct.
Creation is a prerequisite to being God-like; we are incapable of this.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
I don't really agree with your point of view. You seem to imply that in order be the creator of an Ipod, you must first create the Universe. Intelligence creates knowledge, technology and amazes me every day.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
The Ipod was not "created" in the true meaning of the word.
I had a sandwich for lunch today; tuna.
Did I create the sandwich?
No I made the sandwich from 'components'; bread & tuna; both of which I never created.
Likewise the Ipod is made up of components which we manipulate to design, following various laws of physics within electronics, to make a portable, personal music device.
The Ipod was not created, it was made just like my sandwich.
There is a big difference.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
I think you may have chosen for yourself a very limited view of the definition of the word "create". You seem to imply that Intelligence within the Universe can never create, because in order to do so, one must create the very components from which something new will be brought about. I could argue with you that it might be possible for future Intelligence to forge atoms from which new objects will be created, but I'm guessing even that will not satisfy you. (continued)
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
(cont) However, I think even with your definition of the word "create", humanity can still reclaim its title as "creators" with a little change in perception. What is the Universe? The Universe, by definition, is everything. I hope we can agree on that. The Universe is in a state of constant change. (cont)
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
(cont) Science has learned that the very fabric of our Universe is sizzling with subatomic particles that are continually being created out of the very vacuum of space, and continually being destroyed. This is in fact measurable, and multiple scientific experiments have been used to provide evidence for these claims (see the Cassimir effect). These virtual particles pop into existence in the vacuum, have a quantifiable effect and are interacting in very important ways with the Universe. (cont)
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
(cont) The Universe is in a constant state of creation. Science shows that heavier elements that compose everything we see today were forged within dying stars, that existed long before the earth was formed. If life emerged out of those components we can then understand that the very essence of every living being today is in truth older than life itself. (cont)
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Descendants of life are not just in the Universe, we ARE part of the whole. As we may yet widen our perspectives of what we really are. You’re an entity composed of cells that have divided, evolved and multiplied over billions of years. You have not only been as you see yourself now, but your biological essence has, in fact, experienced the past as your individual parents and even those before them, recursively, all the way back to the very first life-form. But the story doesn't end there..
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Your story goes back billions of years, to the guts of stars where your atoms were forged, all the way back to very first moment of time. 14 billion years ago you became. If this were the Universe's history, but not your own, everything that makes you would not exist otherwise.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
The evolution of life and intelligence is but a brief cosmic step of a macro universal process. We call this Universal Evolution, or the evolution of Information on a universal scale (a process that is not limited to biological evolution, but one from which biological evolution emerged from). You are part of this process. From an intelligent, conscious perspective, we may have a role to play in this process like none before.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
We look around us, and some have yet to realize who and what we are. Their amazing potential. To have had your essence forged inside the hearts of stars, to have evolved hands to feel and eyes to see, ears to listen. After nearly being eradicated by meteors that wiped us as dinosaurs off the face of the planet, we've had the ability to survive the toughest of ice ages, powerful droughts and dangerous moments of starvation. To have discovered fire and dreams.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
To form ideas and reason about the world, becoming increasingly more aware of ourselves. To have looked into the past, to reason for the future. To have invented technology, to have inspired ourselves in each iteration, each generation...In our times, through physical expansion and accelerating intelligence, you, the Universe are exponentially becoming.
The Universe is creating things that never were before, not only in the vacuum of space, out of the void, but using its very essence.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
We are surrounded by surmountable opportunities. We can bring about things never witnessed in our history. The Universe has found a way to reason about itself, and we are experiencing that new evolutionary step, one which does not seem to have any particular/singular point of importance, but one to which we can give value to as sentient beings, if we choose to.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
From your point of view, we may be makers. But makers can create things that have emergent properties that did not exist before in nature. I really feel the question of whether makers are creators is mostly academic and as intelligence progresses, the line will blur.
Where we go from here is entirely up to us, because if we choose to, the creation in the Universe will no longer be driven by chance...but by choice. H+
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
thats the problem:
Why is mankind not satisified with acknowledging that what we make is not the same as having created it. Why do we have such a selfish, pride-driven mind to fight for full credit in something we simply cannot claim. We can claim the idea but we are in no position to claim "creator" in the true definition of the word and its a shame that 'creator' has now become synonymous with 'maker' and 'inventor'. It all comes from reprobation against a personal God.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
What the universe may be doing is an externality to our ability. Its inanimate versus animate (assuming that "Universe" is not synonymous to "God").
I cannot accept a spontaneous system because it implies utter independence of intrinsic purpose, reason and value; there is no cause-and-affect, just a mundane "happening" which is a stark contrast to every aspect of modern science today.
I dont want to get into a religious discussion here but its pretty obvious why such ideas are being fronted.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
If the Universe is doing it (and I believe scientific evidence suggests it is), then it doesn't really matter if its inanimate versus animate, because from a macro perspective, we're simply part of the Universe that creates. There doesn't have to be a distinction between inanimate vs animate, if the Universe is seen as a whole, we're not beyond it. The Universe is bound to the laws of Nature, and if it can create, so do we.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Comment removed
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
But going back, I think you said something important: you say you cannot accept a spontaneous system. But right or wrong, the Universe is as it is, regardless of our belief or desire for it to be one way or another. Consider for a moment that you were to live in a Universe as I have proposed: Wouldn't it be better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring?
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
We invented language & created concepts, including "creation", by learning and observing the world around us. Concepts and languages change. We're not claiming the creation of the Universe, so I'm not sure why you find humanity to be selfish for cheering over the creation of things that never were before. Give your species some credit.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
I may be wrong but I don't think you've really thought this through. You claim nothing can be "created" because one would have to create the essence in order for it to be a true creation ("In order to create an apple, you must first create the Universe.", right?) otherwise you'd just be a maker: (continued)
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
God by definition is the absolute everything, always existed and was never created. No matter where God were to create the Universe, since he was everywhere and everything, the Universe would be built upon the essence of God.
God could not create a Universe beyond itself, because doing so would negate his being everything. But, then God cannot be a creator, for the Universe would've been created from his very essence, he could not create from scratch, he simply built upon what existed, himself.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Thus, by your very logic and interpretation of the word, god would not really be a creator. He is a maker, just like us.
Now, as you can see, your interpretation of the word "create" even demotes your god to the lowly level of us mere mortals, the makers of progress. With your interpretation it appears impossible to be a "creator" in the purest of forms. So...if this is so, we now have a word that is meaningless because it cannot really be applied even to the creation of the Universe, and gods
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Comment removed
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since we now have a useless word, let's reclaim it and interpret it in ways it can be used.
To "create", defined as: To cause to exist; bring into being, to give rise to; to produce through artistic or --imaginative effort--.
Welcome to the global interpretation of "create". Here, have a cookie (which I just created).
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
By the way, the creation of something from nothing may not be as impossible as you have been led to believe.
Have you read about quantum fluctuations, virtual particles and the implications of a Universe from Nothing?
Insights from modern physics suggest that our wondrous universe may be the ultimate free lunch.
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
@thoughtwaretv
You may be willing to entertain concepts in modern physics that contradict laws of physics that are well established, I'm not.
There is currently no evidence for spontaneous generation, in anything. There is always a cause to an effect.
Keep theory, theory: this is science.
Entertaining theory as fact; speculation.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@thestrugglewithin
Our minds have evolved to understand the world in this manner. I know this may seem counter-intuitive to you, heck, even I don't understand it, but it's not necessarily the way the Universe always works at the scale of the very small. Have you seen the "Delayed choice quantum eraser" experiment?
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
I stumble on you channel. I think that this is what I have been looking for. A little something to help me know when I'm dreaming. Do these techniques also help with astral projection?
pinetree03 1 year ago
@pinetree03
astral projection isnt a legitimate thing.
Once you get decent amount of experience with lucidity you'll see how some perceive astral projection to be valid.
I've been practicing lucidity for almost 4 years now and had I not been self-analyzing everything I experience in dreams (lucid or not) I could easily present me experiences as justification of astral projection but I would have to ignore instances that invalidate the idea; aka lie.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
I've been getting really close to lucid dreaming. Just the other night, I realized I was dreaming within the dream but it never occured to me to act on it, I just continued on with the dream. Anyone else ever have this problem? I can't seem to get past that point.
maniacchris 1 year ago
@maniacchris
Go to lucidipedia and read up on reality checks.
It takes time to practice, when I started it took about a month for my first lucid experience. It was short but good things take time.
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
@maniacchris
That happens a lot. But don't stress it out. Next time this happens, try something that wish you really could do. If you want to fly, try to run and jump, even if your chest hits the ground momentarily, don't doubt, in seconds you might suddenly be launched into the sky,
thoughtwaretv 1 year ago
Awesome vid, keep up the good work .
Can't wait until a nother class opens up :)
djcoswin18 1 year ago
And there's Tim Post's ego visible in the credits . lol I like the video though. ;)
AniCator 1 year ago
@AniCator Well that information isn't false. (Of course with the use of the lucidity institue's studies and website programmer) he practically did everything to bring lucidipedia to what it is today, and I think he has a right to credit himself.
Ichvyenichalster 1 year ago
@Ichvyenichalster You're right about that.
AniCator 1 year ago
For some reason I do find it a little suspect that Lucidipedia disappears from youtube for a very long time and then suddenly comes back to life when the movie 'Inception' becomes ridiculously huge. Are you trying to cash in? Naughty, naughty.
StreetlightEagle 1 year ago
@StreetlightEagle whats wrong with getting people into lucid dreaming? plus he doesn't charge any money
COSMICSMI2LE 1 year ago
@COSMICSMI2LE That would be a fair enough statement if he wasn't charging money. The problem lies in the fact that he now does charge money for these new lectures and classes.
StreetlightEagle 1 year ago
@StreetlightEagle hah news to me!
COSMICSMI2LE 1 year ago
@StreetlightEagle
Supply and demand.
If you were passionate about lucid dreaming and found MASSES of people coming to you for help, even willing to pay if they are, would you not take the opportunity to expand your website and make it WORTH WHILE to help all these people rather than just side-lining your life to answer 100 repeating " OMG like, how do I WILD XO lol I try but I don't know??! :DDDD" pre-teen questions daily?
thestrugglewithin 1 year ago
ha, great, just great :)
silverblue73 1 year ago
KickAss!!!!!!
npplscorpion 1 year ago
super awesome
yoinkz 1 year ago
clap clap clap
omcasey1 1 year ago
I LiiiiKE IT ! <3
Mr3thoomz 1 year ago
Looks cool!
GizEdwards 1 year ago
awesome, even better than the first one! ;D
Metroidhunter07 1 year ago