Visions of the future while sleeping, can it be explained through science?
Debate Rounds (3)
Thank you for setting up this debate, although, I feel as if a good part of the argument may turn subjective.
There is absolutely no proof, evidence, or any form of argument that can found your points in this debate that science can prove that dreams hold the power to foresee the future. Deja vu, at simplest explained, is the return of memories outfitted in a dream that when exercised in the real world, appears to be foresight. What I mean by that is the event that happens must be regularly occurring with slight differences when applied to dreams. Otherwise, deja vu is the attempt of the mind to connect memories to one another which may correlate to your dream during specific circumstances . With this simple explanation of deja vu, not all dreams are what lead up to your claim of foresight.
Good luck to my opponent in the next round.
"There is absolutely no proof, evidence, or any form of argument that can found your points in this debate that science can prove that dreams hold the power to foresee the future."
A scientist can record the patient's dreams for a few months, and then if one of them occurs in reality, then they can say that dreams have the power to see the future.
As for deja vu, I am not sure about that anymore. What I wish to convey is that the dream's memories come back when the same/similar thing happens in real life, and thus I termed it deja vu. Maybe there's some other word for it, not sure.
"Deja vu, at simplest explained, is the return of memories outfitted in a dream that when exercised in the real world, appears to be foresight"
Exactly! The data accumulated in the brain is processed in the dream, and then the same thing happens in reality!
Thank you for your argument, although your points have not swayed me.
I'm afraid you still haven't provided any proof of a scientist or doctor recording a patient's dream in order to properly assume dreams are factually foresight. Besides, there is a long and complicated process from a scientists conclusion to even become a theory, much less a natural law . It needs to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community which has not happened.
"Deja vu, at simplest explained, is the return of memories outfitted in a dream that when exercised in the real world, appears to be foresight." doesn't mean the brain accurately predicted the event happening in reality. It means the brain was simulating an event that normally happens. It manifests as an illusion of foresight, not a proven hypothesis. Otherwise, your theory (Which technically is just a hypothesis. A theory is an accepted possibility which still hasn't been accepted as a natural law) is subjective.
The research funds in such areas is very low, and scientists have other topics to research and experiment than dreams.
"Deja vu, at simplest explained, is the return of memories outfitted in a dream that when exercised in the real world, appears to be foresight." doesn't mean the brain accurately predicted the event happening in reality."
No, it happens from a memory to imagination, such as the memory can be that I am playing football and then the imagination would be that I had a fight with someone of the other team, and then the next day that happens. The brain doesn't work like a hard disk or camera, it doesn't replay memories frame by frame once again in the dream.
Okay, theory demoted to hypothesis, not that I communicated this to the scientific theory, but I agree, there is no backup evidence for this yet.
Good debate! I know I lost this one though.
Conclusively, the debate has become subjective meaning there isn't much to say left. We've admitted that there is no actuality in foresight from the allocation of memory into dreams and the rest of the debate is just definitions.
My sources were only back-up for definitions I was providing in case you wanted to refute them. Otherwise, we should have tied due to the fact that the debate is subjective and neither one of us can actually prove the other we're correct because science can't disprove foresight (Some people may call it ridiculous, I simply don't believe in it) and it can't prove it, either giving it the stagnant title of a hypothesis.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 7 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.