Was Freud Wrong About Everything? What About Dreams?

[IndigoGhost]

can you explain or show me the posts on SARP please

(http://mortalmist.com/forum/index.php?topic=3759.0)  

This is the original thread Dr.T helped me greatly by writing in a way people could understand. I'm sure if i wrote it myself it would have completely confused people. I have now over the last year perfected it in such a perfect way that if was implemented properly would over time cause every lucid dreamer to become a natural. It works on the process of causing drop zone's parallel to the real world, and the more you create the greater your statistical chance of lucid dreaming get's and the more you create the more your brain naturally develops into the same state of mind as natural lucid dreamers. Its the Fibonacci sequence abused into a box with a translation of religious hermetic teaching modified into a practical application for lucid dreaming. If you truly understand how it works in its complete form then its clear to see it takes effort but is the ultimate lucid dream technique as its not linear and grows into a habit as you use it and soon you do it without thinking and that's when you become a natural. (Sorry for thread Hijack).  

I may make a revised version soon depending on what happens and if people want it, I have created much more potent algorithms of the SARP technique.

On the subject of Freud, I believe he was simply doing what he thought was right based on what he observed in his patients.  

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVTPwPh7ioU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVTPwPh7ioU</a>

[StarSeeker]

On the subject of Freud, I believe he was simply doing what he thought was right based on what he observed in his patients. 

From what I read, his patients didn't seem happy with the (non) results of the treatments.

Freud introduced a lot of ideas, and it was mostly it. It's methods and interpretations are vastly outdated.

[IndigoGhost]

On the subject of Freud, I believe he was simply doing what he thought was right based on what he observed in his patients. 

From what I read, his patients didn't seem happy with the (non) results of the treatments.

Freud introduced a lot of ideas, and it was mostly it. It's methods and interpretations are vastly outdated.

Well, that's more his ego getting in the way of his compassion. I think he was more interested in figuring things out for himself rather then helping his patients. This is one of the reason that i don't respect him as much as i could have if he actually cared more for the patients.

[johnb]

The core premise behindFreud's dream interpretation method and model, is that ALL dreams are wish fulfillments. This comes in two flavors:

1) Obvious wish fulfillments (e.g.  you win the lottery, you get a great new job, etc ...)

2) Latent wish fulfillments (e.g. you dream you are 10 and your younger brother dies. The dream is freightening, but it fulfills a latent wish for your brothers demise so you can reap the benefit of all of your parents attention, not just half).

Freud was wrong about all dreams being forms of wish fulfillment. A few dreams I have now and then could be interpreted that way, but most of them don't fulfill any obvious wishes. I'm sure Freud would say they were fulfilling subconscious wishes that I didn't know I had, but that's really a stretch. And it's pretty much impossible to prove or disprove.

Interestingly, the wish-fulfillment model of dreams may actually be correct with regard to most LDs. A big reason many of us try to get lucid is to fulfill various wishes.

[Moonbeam]

None of us can present any evidence about what we experience in our dreams.  It seems to me that experience IS the evidence of consciousness - but since it is by nature not physical, our ability to prove anything with it is pretty much nil.  Aside from proof, however, who I am is the culmination of my experience.

Experience is evidence.  It's the best evidence for a lot of things. 

We all have evidence of our own consciousness, every moment that we're conscious.  We also have evidence of other peoples' and animals' consciousnesses.  Evidence doesn't have to be physical.  That doesn't explain how it comes about, or really anything about it, other than it exists.

Evidence is extremely useful for exploring and modeling the physical.  Experience. . . must be experienced.

For some things, like lucid dreaming, experience is the only evidence.  Actually that's probably true for most things in life.   

[Moonbeam]

I just simply like to understand in a different way, yeah maybe a lot of the stuff I'm coming up with is random guessing and speculation, but even gravity is speculation and guessing based on the most obvious situational understanding, for example you yourself never created or tested to perfect knowledge the theory of gravity and are only accepting someones "word" on it which comes from your teachers and the other scientists.

Gravity is not speculation.  That doesn't even make sense.  I have evidence of gravity every waking moment of my life.  

I don't think people know what evidence is.  It doesn't mean "scientific explanation".   It just means that you didn't make it up.  

For example, everybody here has evidence of lucid dreaming, because we have experienced it.  However, nobody has evidence of being able to bring things back from dreams to the waking world.  Therefore, we believe other people when we say they had a lucid dream, but we don't believe them when they say they brought something back from a dream--unless they have additional evidence.  The evidence needed will have to be proportional to how unusual the claim being made is, before we believe it.  The evidence for bringing something back from a dream would have to be huge, for most people to believe it.

Think of it this way, if we always believe what the collective peoples say then we should believe in god as there are more people who believe in one then not. Yes, your science may have "Circumstantial Evidence" using the machines and techniques they understand to use, and yes it may be correct but their word is just about as good as those who talk of god. Think about it this way, if a man made a machine to "Detect" god and it was beeping saying god was "here" then you would not believe him without understanding and doing the tests yourself right? Have you ever done a test that proves gravity is caused the way that science traditionally tells you?

I don't think we should believe in what people collectively believe, because they often collectively believe in things without evidence.  That's my whole point.

I have no idea how gravity is caused.  I don't think anybody does.  If they do, I missed it somewhere.  You don't have to understand how something works to have evidence of its existence.  

I may seem confusing, but you have to understand that i have spent the last 6 years of my life searching for science breaking evidence and understandings that are not used in the traditional arena of education. I have found so much stuff that goes against traditional scientific belief that i completely discarded all information i have ever learned in any educational institution. Forgetting what you learn at school really is the only way to truly understand the world and find the true understandings of everything.  

I agree that a lot of what is taught in school is crap without evidence.

People didn't know until recently that you can't figure out things by just thinking about them.

Can, have done so countless times. In my case it almost always works and i have had a good tract record for it. Then again, it may be down to the fact that i have the belief that i can do so and thus i can, same way when i want to get lucid I'm able to almost anytime i want. I can switch it on and off, because i know i can, this is caused by an unwavering belief in myself. Maybe you just don;t believe in yourself enough MB.

No, you haven't figured anything out without evidence, IG.  You may think that you have, but anything that you think that is based on absolutely nothing is wrong.  Just like everything that everybody else in the world has ever thought of that was based on absolutely nothing has been wrong.  There is no case ever of somebody figuring out something for which they had no evidence.   Think about it--the concept doesn't even make sense.  Where would this knowledge come from?  You realize the odds against "guessing right"--so how would it happen?  

I don't know what you mean that you are switching on and off.

I'm an Autistic picture thinker though, which is probably where the difference comes from. In-fact, SARP came from me trying to come up with a lucid dream method, where sat on my bed and ran through images of scenarios in my head and within 2-5 minutes i came up with the basics of SARP. I then tried it for a few nights, it worked and that was when i told Dr.T about it. I did not need anything else but my brain to come up with it, and it was easy because i had unwavering belief in myself being able to come up with a technique so i was able to. Its sad that SARP has been under used to be honest as its early track record was great for the people who actually used it and let me know about their results. I got to a point with it that it was so easy it got myself lucid without any effort and the only was i did not have a lucid dream was going to bed with the intention of blacking out.  

Thinking of something to try, then trying it and gathering evidence and seeing that it works doesn't count as "knowing something without evidence", obviously.

People didn't know until recently that you can't figure out things by just thinking about them.

If this was true we would not be thinking as the first thought after our initial existence would never have been thought.  

 

I find it funny as well that there's no evidence to prove this other then someones misunderstandings of how the human mind works and someones personal experience, but because they wear a lab-coat they must be right? right?  

Prove what?

[AspirationRealized]

For those attempting to argue with Indigo...

EDIT:

Ok, after reading some of the thread instead of just glancing, I would like to make a suggestion. And its not exactly my place, since its not my thread, but I do believe this would be best anyway. This topic should probably either be split into two parts so that some of it is still talking about Freud and his theories on wish fulfillment. The rest of the responses, which appear to be a debate on religion and/or what constitutes as evidence, should probably be made into its own thread or even taken to PMs if its more of a one on one thing and not generating any positive discussion from other members...

[Moonbeam]

For those attempting to argue with Indigo...

  I prefer to think of it as a discussion with Indie.

Whenever I "discuss" this topic, it makes me think some more.  That's why I never quit.  This time, I thought about the things we know, but don't know how we know, and actually never even considered how we know them.  Which is most things. 

EDIT:

Ok, after reading some of the thread instead of just glancing, I would like to make a suggestion. And its not exactly my place, since its not my thread, but I do believe this would be best anyway. This topic should probably either be split into two parts so that some of it is still talking about Freud and his theories on wish fulfillment. The rest of the responses, which appear to be a debate on religion and/or what constitutes as evidence, should probably be made into its own thread or even taken to PMs if its more of a one on one thing and not generating any positive discussion from other members...

Do you really think it matters?  The subject of Freud is exhausted pretty quickly.  I don't agree with "taking it to PM's".  That's pointless.  It's all positive.  What could be negative about discussing the nature of reality and how we know what we know?  Relatively, in the scheme of things, I mean. 

[AspirationRealized]

I do think it matters. I see two separate conversations taking place, one is about Freud, and the other has branched off. The people still talking about the topic are more or less ignoring the banter inbetween. I don't see a good reason not to split it.

That said the nature of suggestions is you voice them and people agree with them or they don't.

[StarSeeker]

1. About experience, there is a quote I just love: A experiência é a madre de todas as cousas, por ela soubemos radicalmente a verdade. I'm not going to translate it, I'll just say that this is from the time of the Discoveries, when Earth was discovered round.

2. About evidence, theories, etc.
«for example you yourself never created or tested to perfect knowledge the theory of gravity and are only accepting someones "word" on it which comes from your teachers and the other scientists.»
Indigo is not very clear here. Not a good example, I imagine.
There is factic knowledge, right? Facts and what they immediately say. But just this is hardly of any use. Then people construct theoretical schemes, based on those facts.
The theoretical schemes are not the same as "making things up", it's more like making founded assumptions, that may very well be wrong even though the facts originating cannot.

Think of economics. There are a few facts, and then all sorts of theories that try to make use of those facts. Some of those theories were outright discredited by facts (beats me while they keep being mainstream though) that didn't fit with the practical implications of those theories.

[Moonbeam]

1. About experience, there is a quote I just love: A experiência é a madre de todas as cousas, por ela soubemos radicalmente a verdade. I'm not going to translate it, I'll just say that this is from the time of the Discoveries, when Earth was discovered round.

Lol, OK, let me see if I can read Portugese, without cheating.  Something to the effect of what seems strange today may be true tomorrow?

There is factic knowledge, right? Facts and what they immediately say. But just this is hardly of any use. Then people construct theoretical schemes, based on those facts.

I disagree.  Empirical knowledge is very useful.  However, the "theories" that people make up to explain what is going on often dilute and distort the knowledge, and can distract from the original truth when people focus on the theory instead.  People have a hard time separating the empirical knowledge from what is spun around it. If an idea about why something works is not tested, it is meaningless.  Of course this becomes more and more apparent, and confusing, when the topic is more complicated.

For example, I have gotten interested in dog training recently, and of course there are some methods that work better than others, and actually there has been progress made in just the last ten years or so, and even old dog-trainers have switched to these methods, even saying they were skeptical until they tried them.

OK, so that's great, so I read aobut what is the most current and widely accepted as best method for dog training.  However, when you try to talk about it with people, their explanations are always completely intertwined with their theory for how it works, to the point that usually when they think they are being helpful, actually all they are doing is explaining their version of the theory, and not including the practical, empirical part.  AND--they don't even know they are doing it.  They may be great dog trainers, and can use the methods that empirically work, but since they have made up these theories about why they work, they can't identify and explain the useful parts anymore.

So, I ended up getting a lot of advice about pack structure, and dominance, and what the dog is thinking and feeling, and the practical advice becomes lost in the avalanche of theory.  Now, I know enough about dogs and psychology and animal behavior to know that a lot of what they are saying is just wrong, no matter how great they are at training.  So of course I get caught up in arguments about why or why not my dog does what he does.  Even when I pointed this out, and tried to focus their attention on my practical questions, they could not separate their empirical knowledge from the theories they have spun and other people have spun about why it works, rather than step-by-step instructions.

You can know how to drive a car without understanding how an internal combustion engine works, luckily.  I don't need somebody to teach me to drive by explaining that, or explaining that it's magic, or explaining how there are hamsters running on wheels making it go.  However, if I did want to learn about internal combustion engines, I would want to learn from somebody who actually knows about them, and hasn't just "imagined" how something could make a car go without ever having looked under the hood. 

The theoretical schemes are not the same as "making things up", it's more like making founded assumptions, that may very well be wrong even though the facts originating cannot.

They are too often unfounded assumptions, because you can't just guess about complicated things and have them turn out to be right.  That's the problem--they may very well be wrong. 

Think of economics. There are a few facts, and then all sorts of theories that try to make use of those facts. Some of those theories were outright discredited by facts (beats me while they keep being mainstream though) that didn't fit with the practical implications of those theories.

I don't think economics is the best example for this.  Economics is partially the prediction of human behavior, which of course influences what it predicts.  Why not think of almost everything else that people have tried to guess about and been wrong, which is virtually everything until they started using the scientific method?

The benefit is that then you can really make accurate predictions, rather than doing stupid things like eating out of your dogs bowl with him so he accepts you as pack-leader.  For example.

[AspirationRealized]

On the original topic, I can agree with greg and john. My dad hasn't had a "good dream" as long as I remember. Or if he has he only tells me about the stressful ones. If anything his dreams are "more of the same" like greg says because he's pretty stressed out most of the time. I think it'd be best if he didn't dream at all if this is all he can dream about.

I was in the shower and I always have odd ideas in the shower, and I was thinking of counters to Freud's loophole. What came to mind wasn't effective for that purpose, but is interesting nonetheless. I thought of "unselfish" dreams, and the two examples that came to mind were actually MM members.

mu was one of them, because he frequently dreams in some pretty crazy perspectives (I'm pretty sure he uses some that writers aren't even aware of or capable of comprehending ). The other was Kar because she doesn't seem to have a dream body from the beginning, she has to possess one of her dream characters if she wants to influence what's going on.

The idea of removing the self from dreams would fundamentally defy Freud's theory. The concept of unselfish dreams in general, if such a thing can exist, is interesting just on its own. At least to me it is.

But like I said that idea was ineffective. Partly because its difficult to be sure there is such a thing as dreams without self and partly because subconscious desires make such an effective catch all.

While we're on the subject, shared dreaming has to do a lot with wish fulfillment; "successful" attempts merely fulfill peoples wish that shared dreaming works I am just kidding. But shared dreaming has some interesting concepts to add to that unselfish dream idea.

Anyway to refute Freud's theory its probably easier to consider something that is "more likely" (like previous responses have done on the topic) rather than deny it directly.

P.S. when I wrote this response on my phone, it kept correcting Freud as Fraud. Freudian slip?

[IndigoGhost]

On the original topic, I can agree with greg and john. My dad hasn't had a "good dream" as long as I remember. Or if he has he only tells me about the stressful ones. If anything his dreams are "more of the same" like greg says because he's pretty stressed out most of the time. I think it'd be best if he didn't dream at all if this is all he can dream about.

I believe that people dreams reflect on their own emotional and mental health. I for example don't have much to worry about and am a generally happy person so my dreams reflect that with being fun, happy and intriguing to me. I have seen this same pattern follow in others, for example chronically depressed people will dream about death and murders or horrible things, cutters for example. I believe that's why very sexually promiscuous people will have more sexual dreams. Same reason that more lucid are aware people have more lucid dreams. I believe we are all a product of what we wish for, you may ask why anyone would wish to be depressed or cut themselves, its quite simple really and the most simple explanation is they crave attention. Take a cutter or a depressed person and make them a celebrity, they get all the attention they want, they then stop cutting and start dreaming about other things that reflect their new state of mind. If you take it full circle back to the desire thing i have been talking about all along then you can understand that people who have bad dreams are for one reason or another causing them because they are stuck in a negative belief and response system. Take mass hysteria for example, people think they are sick so they become sick whether they like it or not, people who believe they are sick become sick. Nobody wants to be sick, but someones we become sick because we think we are sick and its the same emotionally. I can become a typical "emo" personality, because i think its cool to be emo and that's what all the cool kids do, could have been a perfectly happy person beforehand but now that i have adopted the emo mindset i start becoming the very thing I'm emulating. You wont understand it, but if you act like a rocket scientist and read about rocket science you are likely to become a rocket scientist bi-proxy.

You guys will probably my thoughts on this to shreds but who cares. 

[majic]

I have a fair amount of stress (I would rather call it loading as its not so negative) during the day and always a lot on my mind but am able to switch off at night. Its very rare for the day to bother me when I go to sleep. It never used to be like this as I spent years sleep deprived but have learnt to deal with this. My dreams most of the time leave me feeling warm and with a sense of well being in spite of what the day has been like and so I think you can leave the day behind if you make the effort. If you carry the day into your dreams its by setting intent rather that uncontrolled carry on of stresses.

[johnb]

I was in the shower and I always have odd ideas in the shower, and I was thinking of counters to Freud's loophole. What came to mind wasn't effective for that purpose, but is interesting nonetheless. I thought of "unselfish" dreams, and the two examples that came to mind were actually MM members.

mu was one of them, because he frequently dreams in some pretty crazy perspectives (I'm pretty sure he uses some that writers aren't even aware of or capable of comprehending ). The other was Kar because she doesn't seem to have a dream body from the beginning, she has to possess one of her dream characters if she wants to influence what's going on.

The idea of removing the self from dreams would fundamentally defy Freud's theory. The concept of unselfish dreams in general, if such a thing can exist, is interesting just on its own. At least to me it is.

It is a good idea. I often have dreams in which it seems like I'm just an observer. But maybe the self could be removed even further in dreams. Maybe if the self split up into all the dream characters, so the dreamer would be simultaneously everyone and, therefore, no one in particular.

But like I said that idea was ineffective. Partly because its difficult to be sure there is such a thing as dreams without self and partly because subconscious desires make such an effective catch all.

Right. Maybe Freud would say that dreams without self are expressing a wish to destroy oneself. Like someone who wants to commit suicide.

P.S. when I wrote this response on my phone, it kept correcting Freud as Fraud. Freudian slip?

Probably an appropriate correction to make.