What are dreams?

Heard somewhere that dreams are just random firings of the brain leaving vague general impressions which our conscious mind upon waking tries to make since out of by assigning names, identities, and meaning to things. Out of this second process we get the dream, colored by the biases of our subconscious during the process of sorting and labeling done by our conscious mind.

Need to look this up and verify if this is a real theory and what it's based on.

A question about Space, Time, Relativity, Memory and Perception

Given the theory of relativity, a person traveling near the speed of light would live longer relative to a person not traveling at that speed, but from their point of view (time relative to the speed they are traveling) they would live a typical lifespan. This is because of the way atoms behave relative to the speed of light (we define time according to the way atoms behave: see 'atomic clock' on wikipedia).
Assuming that in particular, when we speak of time what we are really concerned with is the rate at which things (and in particular us) decay, it would be safe to say that near the speed of light things simply decay at a slower rate and this is all we really mean by time being relative to the speed of light.

My question is this:
Is our perception of time relative to the speed of light? Difficult to say. Experiments have shown that our perception of time slows in moments of stress but this is attributed to our memory capacity being kicked into over drive in these situations [citation needed for experiment which showed this: for now see this article http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2009/02/thinking-faster-by-altering-your.html] Our perception of time does not seem to be relative to the speed of light. The implications would be pretty staggering especially when you consider that time on Earth is even relative! Atomic clocks placed at various altitudes and locations where gravity is stronger or weaker have showed that time, or atomic particles, behave differently from place to place. Pretty crazy, huh? Maybe lifespan of a planet is determined itself by the planets density, which is not a constant either given enough time (or a better word would be change in this case). Perhhaps the best definition for time would be the rate at which things change?

Open Mindedness

A pastor I once knew used to have this saying, "Keep your mind open, but not so open that your brains fall out." While I appreciate the sentiment I think he was missing something about what it means to be open minded, while at the same time revealing the fear that keeps so many people from being open minded. It is easier to reject a point of view without really considering it, but keep in mind that considering a point of view does not mean the same thing as adopting that point of view. This is the essence of discernment.

An Iteresting Prespective on Faith

I rather strongly dislike the title of this video, but I think the video itself has some very good things to say.

The Infinite Complexity of Nature

So we want to measure something, let's say, a desk. We take a ruler or measuring tape and determine that the desk is 2 feet wide...give or take an inch. Give or take? No, let's be precise. We determine the desk to be 2 feet and 1 inch wide...give or take one half of an inch. No, no, let's try again - we determine the desk to be two feet and one and a half inch wide...give or take an eighth of an inch...
This excersize could go on until we run out of little lines on our ruler...and then when we bring in a more precise scientific measure it continue on even longer...and then, when we bring in a microscope...how long could we continue this?
How precisely do we measure things? As precisely as possible or as precisely as we need to? Scientists are finding ways to be more and more precise, but how precise is the most precise possible? The distance from one end of an inch to another can be split an infinite number of times, making impossible to ever measure a truly exact inch, but we measure things not as precisely as is theoretically possible, but rather as precisely as is needed. When Scientists need to measure something more precisely than is possible given the instruments they have, they develope new more presice instruments equal to the task.
Mathematics, the language of science, is used in a simlar way. For example, consider the number "pi" (π - 3.14159265358979323846…). It is one of the most important mathmatical constants and yet it is not an exact number. While the value of pi has been computed to more than a trillion (1012) digits, still no one knows the exact number and it is said to have an infinite decimal expansion.
If our most precise tools and measures are approximate at best, then where are we? We have grown so comfortable speaking of scientific "facts" and "laws" but these were all developed over time by fallible human beings using aproxmate tools. And besides, scientific laws have been proven false in the past as well.
Take Newton vs. Einstein. Newtons work is useful for approximate applications, but Eisteins much more complex theory disproves Newtons work.
But this is how we reason and understand things. We use generalities, catagories and labels, to develope, share, and catalogue our observations about the world around us, and when "words fail" we make up new ones and thus language evolves as does our understanding of the universe.
There are other ways to communicate things to complex for labels, catagories, and words. Art and music help here.
...[thought still in progress to be revised / edited / continued]...

Adaptive Response vs. Difficulty

What if “Good” is merely the natural adaptive human response to difficulty? Difficulty then, from this perspective, may be called “evil.” It would follow then, that without evil, there can be no good, just as a re-action first requires an action.

Subjectivity and Consensus

Actions affect individuals depending on a miriad of factors both obvious and subtle, and because they affect individuals in different ways, it is natural for individuals to perceive these actions based on the way they affect them. In this way perception of actions is subjective, however it is also natural for a group of individuals who are effected by similar actions in a similar way to come to a consensus in its perception of these actions.
In very general terms, humans can be said to share a group consensus on their perception of actions. This is because humans share a similar experience and many actions affect all humans in similar ways because they are of the same species.

Will and Intent

Some actions can be said to be "accidental" meaning that the action was not done willfully or "on purpose." Other actions may be willful but the effect was not what was intended. The kind of action actions in question are those that are both willful and intentional. Individuals or groups may willfully and intentionally cause difficulty for others in order to alleviate difficulty for themselves. Human actions that cause or contribute to human difficulty and human actions that cause or contribute to alleviating human difficulty are considered evil actions or good actions respectively, because having access to human experience, we perceive human will and intent.

Humans and Animals

Since humans share a common experience and perspective and perceive human will and intent, humans apply values of good and evil primarily to humans and secondarily to that which great resembles human thought, will, and intent. For example when a pet “obeys” we reward calling it “good.” To the extent which animals do what we wish them to, we consider them “well behaved.” Though we perceive some resemblence to human thought, will, and intent, we do not treat it the same way or place the same values on their actions. Why? Perhaps this is because despite the resemblance to human thought, will, and intent, we have no point of reference, no consensus, no access to the animal experience - indeed, the actions of some species are so foreign that there is no resemblence to human thought, will, or intent whatsoever. This has lead many to assume that either thought, will, and intent is absent in animals or that it is of a somehow more base quality.

Acts of Nature and of Animals

“Acts of nature,” though sometimes spoken of as having “evil” effects, are not judged in the same way when we perceive no will or intent behind them, and the acts of animals are only judged to the extent which we perceive will and intent in those acts. Some hold that animals have no such thing as will or intent, only animal instinct and are thus “innocent;” in other words, the idea of “good” or “evil” cannot be applied to their actions, but if the will and intent is acting ultimately to alleviate difficulty what real distinction is there between “animal instinct” and will and intent? Is it possible that human will or intent somehow perceived as better than animal instinct simply because we are more aware of the complexity of human decisions than we are the complexity of animal decisions? Do not humans as a group have natural tendencies - behavioral patterns with exceptions - and do not animals also exhibit exceptions to their behavioral patterns? The strongest objection to this view seems to come from those who value humanity over all other forms of life, but the intent of this argument is not to form a degraded view of humanity by comparing it to nature but to form an elevated view of nature by acknowledging that our perspective is necessarily human and therefore biased in favor of human interests.

Consensus and The Greater Good

Because that which alleviates or contributes to difficulty are perceived as good and evil, and because that which causes difficulty is subjective and can only be agreed upon by consensus, the consensus will tend to be that whatever alleviates difficulty for the greatest consensus (or group which comprises consensus) is the true “greatest good.”

Conflicts and Complications

Given this perception of action and reaction, conflicts begin to arise.

Individual vs. Group
One sort of conflict comes when the “greater good” creates difficulty for or contradicts the “good” as perceived by an individual or a smaller consensus.

Group vs. Group
Another sort of conflict comes when the consensus of one group of humans, creates difficulty for or contradicts the consensus of another group.

Old vs. New
There is a third sort of conflict. What happens when a previous response to human difficulties contradicts a new response to human difficulty? This new response might be more effective, less effective, counter-affective, or completely benign, and judged accordingly, but...

Complications
...this becomes complicated when a group perceives the previous response as unchangeable. In this case something may be held as “good” that is either a less effective response to difficulty, or no longer has any effect to alleviate difficulty, or even creates more difficulty.
It is holding a solution as absolute or unchangeable that creates this complication. Merely valuing a solution because it is older is somewhat natural. New solutions (or responses to difficulty) are suspect when compared to methods that are tested numerous times. The difference comes as the new solution is tested more and more with positive results and still rejected because it differs from or even contradicts the old solution. This goes against the natural tendency to adapt to the best solution for alleviating difficulty.
Another complication is created when it is perceived as possible that an individual could do consistently and exclusively “good” actions, meaning actions that were absolutely and universally good; but absolutely and universally “good” actions must mean actions that are beneficial to all and create difficulty for none, and given the subjectivity of individual human experience, what is beneficial to one individual or group often differs or even contradicts what is beneficial to another, so what then? Do we suppose that some absolutely and universally good actions have evil consequences for some? Does that not contradict what “good” is? Not if good is defined as something completely apart from it’s effects. In fact for good to be absolute and universal it must be defined apart from it’s effects. What then? Could an action which ends with the destruction of humanity itself be considered good? It could if good is defined apart from its effects. In this model of “third party” or “transcendental” good, two “wrongs” could make a “right,” and two “rights” could make a “wrong;” in other words, two evils acts could produce a good effect, and two goods could produce an evil effect.