The Instigator
lord_megatron
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Amedexyius
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Visions of the future while sleeping, can it be explained through science?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Amedexyius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 552 times Debate No: 93205
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

lord_megatron

Pro

I wish to debate about the phenomenon of deja vu, when we dream something and the next day the exact/similar thing happens. I think it can be explained by science as I think the brain goes into overdrive while sleeping and uses all the data accumulated in the entire day to piece together the possible events in the future. Often our data is incomplete and fiction can get mixed with non-fiction, therefore we don't get such foresight every time. This is my theory regarding future visions. Any thoughts?
Amedexyius

Con

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 [1]. With this simple explanation of deja vu, not all dreams are what lead up to your claim of foresight.

Sources
[1] http://content.time.com...

Good luck to my opponent in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1
lord_megatron

Pro

Well, research is still a long way back, and my argument is just a theory. What I mean to say that when sometimes we dream about the next day or something like that, and then the next day goes in a similar or same way. It has happened sometimes with almost everyone. And I think it can be explained by science through my theory.
"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!
Amedexyius

Con

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 [1]. 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.

Sources
[1] http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
lord_megatron

Pro

Recording dreams
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.
Theory
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.
Amedexyius

Con

Thanks for the debate, it was fun.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
My vote and RFD is the same as the previous except that I didn't award any source points.
Posted by Amedexyius 1 year ago
Amedexyius
@Ragnar I'll do so. Since my opponent no longer exists as an account, I'd like to get the win without feeling guilty about hurting the other person's feelings since they no longer care .3.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: RonaldTrumpkin// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: PRO's arguments were based on assertions, while CON's were based on facts. PRO used no sources to speak of.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. Stating that one side used facts while the other didn't is not specific assessment of any given points. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to establish that Con's sources were reliable, and not just that he was the only one to use them.
************************************************************************
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
Someone please notify me if this gets near to the end of the voting period, and there is still not a real vote.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: missmozart// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

[*Reason for removal*] While the arguments points are sufficiently explained, the source points are not. The voter is required to assess the relevance of the source given, and not merely state that one side gave reliable sources.
************************************************************************
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
SERIOUSLY? I'm actually pretty annoyed that DDO has gotten rid of not only the accents, but the letters of the word itself. It's meant to read "deja vu" (with accents) and not "d"j" vu".
Posted by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
RFD==> Firstly, Pro misunderstood the meaning of d"j" vu (lit. already seen). It does not imply that our dreams turn to experiences but in fact the feeling that something we experience has already happened to us before. This was well pointed out by Con. Pro's arguments entirely consisted of his own opinions and were not backed up with any sources or proof. (If he had done some research, perhaps he would have discovered the meaning of d"j" vu?) Con however, provided reliable sources to refute all of Pro's points. Regarding arguments, I found it difficult to follow Pro's because they were oddly structured (as if he was writing down his thoughts as he went). His arguments mainly consisted of 'this COULD happen' or 'IF it was like this, then..' without any solid proof of anything, therefore making them weak. Con's points were realistic and straight-forward. He managed to skilfully refute all of Pro's points and Pro even admitted it (Round 3). Finally, just a general advice to Pro: make sure you use the resolution as the basis of your argument. If it states "can it be explained through science", then you have to make sure your points include how d"j" vu has been SCIENTIFICALLY proven instead of bickering on about the 'what ifs'.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Grandzam// Mod action: Removed<

0 points awarded. Reasons for voting decision: It's a tie

[*Reason for removal*] Even if the voter awards no points, the voter is still required to provide some feedback. This RFD contains no feedback.
************************************************************************
Posted by lord_megatron 1 year ago
lord_megatron
@Jam_man Yeah visions of the future while dreaming sometimes happen and can be explained through science (my theory)
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Grandzam// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one who provided sources. If Con had points out that Pro had the burden of proof, he would have won. As it stands, it's actually pretty much a tie in terms of arguments.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to do more than state a difference in source number to explain a source point allocation, as they must also establish that the given sources were reliable (i.e. relevant to the debate)
************************************************************************
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missmozart 1 year ago
missmozart
lord_megatronAmedexyiusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments