Not sure, say more? I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
I've just been reading passages about Nietzsche about how dreams reveal our deepest errors of thought, so I think right now I'm coming from a completely opposite place than your statement is. : )
I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
It's hard to elaborate on using something so ethereal as dreams as the leading premise.
I would suggest that dreams are just simply a way in which we perceive reality. Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.
Question:I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague.
Though not a direct result of sensory stimulation, dreams are real because they are a result of short term memory (including sensory) consolidation which actually occurs during sleep.
Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.
How could you not believe your dreams, while they are going on? That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.
I find this to be contradictory. If you acknowledge that your dreams are unreal, then how can you, at the same time, say that they can be regarded as a form of reality? It is true, that what we believe as real, at one time, may be dismissed as unreal at another time, but this requires a conscious decision, that what was formerly believed should now be disbelieved. This is sometimes called "changing your mind", and it involves the recognition of a difference between what is real, and what is believed to be real. So when I awaken from a dream, and what I believed as real within the dream is dismissed as unreal, what I am doing is changing my mind. I recognize that what I believe to be real, and what is actually real, are distinct, and this allows me to apprehend the fact that I believe my dream as real, when it is going on, but dismiss it as unreal, later.
Since this "changing my mind" is a case of deciding that what my mind has produced at a particular time, is not real, and opting for what my mind produces at another time as more real, how does this support idealism? What do you base the determination of "real" in, your belief?
Metaphysician Undercover:That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal.
This raises a few interesting points:
The experience of dreaming is real (actually occurs) for its duration.
Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours.
However, the sequence and/or association of these experiences in a dream are generally not the same as those found during waking hours. It is the sequence and/or association of experiences in a dream which are not real (in the sense that they didn't actually occur during waking hours).
I also fail to see the connection between dream reality and idealism.
I guess the question is "Is there something in waking life that cannot be dreamt, and if this is not the case, then how can we distinguish being awake from dreaming one is awake?"
Terrapin StationJune 25, 2017 at 12:54#807710 likes
My dreams are qualitatively different than my perception when I'm awake, and I believe that is true for the vast majority of people, otherwise they'd have no basis for calling one set of experiences a dream and another waking perception in the first place.
Terrapin StationJune 25, 2017 at 12:58#807720 likes
How could you not believe your dreams, while they are going on? That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal.
I almost always know that I'm dreaming when I am. Dreams to me seem very similar to daydreams, imaginings when awake, etc. only I'm sleeping instead. So it's similar to knowing that I'm daydreaming or imagining something when I'm awake.
Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours.
I don't agree that dream content is real in this way. The images in my dreams appear to be completely made up, and nothing I've ever experienced in my waking hours. However there appears to be some sort of word association, which relates the made up images to things I've already experienced. So for instance, there will be a person in my dream, who doesn't actually look at all like my brother, because the image is completely made up, but I will know that person in my dream as my brother. When I awaken, I'll wonder, why did my brother look like that in the dream?
I almost always know that I'm dreaming when I am. Dreams to me seem very similar to daydreams, imaginings when awake, etc. only I'm sleeping instead. So it's similar to knowing that I'm daydreaming or imagining something when I'm awake.
If you know that you are dreaming when you are dreaming, and dreaming requires being asleep or else it would be daydreaming, then I can assume that you know when you are asleep. How do you know when you are asleep, and not awake? How do you differentiate between these two, what is the difference for you, between being asleep and being awake, so that you know when you are dreaming, and not just daydreaming?
Whatever anyone writes here, we should remember that dreams are something in the world. They have a psychological, cognitive, physical, and/or biological meaning, or explanation, or at least mechanism which have been studied.
Our typical philosophical ruminations should be held up to what science has figured out.
ForgottenticketJune 25, 2017 at 21:15#808920 likes
I'm still not entirely sure what absolute idealism means. I haven't read Hegel myself directly yet (life is short). If we're going down this line where altered states of consciousness (which dreaming is) is proof then why isn't being drunk vs being sober also evidence? There is an obvious phenomenal difference between the two.
I think dreams are evidence the waking experience is not we think it is. I believe it is just a continuation of the same ontological sort but with the sensory inputs combined into it. The reason it feels different is due to evolution (if you believed you were still dreaming you could jump off a cliff to fly away or something), but if you focus on the between the waking moment or going into sleep you can actually feel the change first hand.
Dreaming/daydreaming are qualitatively different than waking experience. Daydreaming always occurs parallel to waking experience. Sleep-dreaming does not.
That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on,
While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream".
Some dreams are horrible. Maybe they are manifestations of my worst subconscious fears, anxieties, etc., and my conscious self, though in a body that is asleep, works overtime on coping.
It's like the child in me, confronted with overwhelming trauma, telling himself that it is going to be okay--that it's just a dream and I'll get through it.
Then I wake up, process all of it, and say "Dreams are cruel!"
Take the fact that some dreams are lucid enough where we are in control of our surroundings. Would this not at the very least be a sort of an informal proof for the existence of God? How else would one explain the fact that the observer in the dream can have control over everything they are experiencing?
In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?
In other words, let's assume that some person has the miraculous ability to realize every night that they are dreaming. This realization would allow the person to control their dreams for whatever purpose/desire for the period of the dream. Say one is studying some material, then in the dream, they can recall material, which this person is studying (doubtfully what one would do; but, a noble purpose to devote the dream space-time to). An alternative is that one can dream about music.
Isn't it fascinating that the mind can recall pieces of music with such detail during sleep (I'm sure I'm not the only one), effortlessly? In my case, I find it extraordinary that I can dream W.A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 1'st movement without a hitch during sleep as opposed to the great difficulty one would have to recall the same piece during waking hours. If that isn't extraordinary, then I don't know what is.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 01:28#809290 likes
Dreaming/daydreaming are qualitatively different than waking experience. Daydreaming always occurs parallel to waking experience. Sleep-dreaming does not.
What do you mean by "parallel to waking experience"? Daydreaming occurs while one is awake, it is an awake experience. I've done it many times and it's a completely different thing from dreaming when I am asleep.
While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream".
Perhaps, but I'm talking about while the dream is going on. This is called lucid dreaming, when one can exercise some form of control over one's dreams.
Putting that aside, have you never woken up from a dream, to realize at the moment of awakening, that it was just a dream? In this case, the dream is being experienced as if what is happening in the dream is really happening.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 01:34#809300 likes
In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?
Suppose that in a regular dream, what is being experienced in the dream is taken by the dreamer as being real, what is really happening. In a lucid dream, one has some control what is being dreamed. I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible? How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening?
I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible?
I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.
How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening?
That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/entertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 01:54#809330 likes
I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.
The lucid dreamer I spoke to claimed to have some control over what was happening in the dream. When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie.
That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/extertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.
The question though, is a question for the lucid dreamer who has control over the dream. How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? Wouldn't having control over it make it like a daydream? And in a daydream I know that what I am daydreaming is not real, because I have control over it.
When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie.
The concept of 'control' is obviously not the same as in a dream as in waking life. The concept of control in a dream is maximized when one dreams lucidly. I have no qualms with calling a lucid dream a form of reality, just not occupied in the same space-time as in waking life.
How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like?
Because the dream IS real. There is no point in denying the beauty of a piece of music as well as the content of a dream. The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. It's just a state space where the set of possible configurations of 'things' (the possibilities in a sort of monastic space that is reality) is different than that of waking life.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 02:03#809370 likes
What grounds are there for assuming a differentiation between the two?
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 02:09#809400 likes
Reply to Question
In my waking life there is a logical continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity.
In my waking life there is a logically continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity.
Well, sci-fi or fantasy movies are just as 'real' by the same logic; but, we don't have a prejudice against them as not being real as you claim dreams are.
I guess I've always rejected idealism in all its forms, be it Berkeleyan, or transcendental or absolute.
Which means, I suppose, that I have always subscribed to some brand of realism, if one must fall into one of these two camps to some extent.
Since I basically reject idealism, I must not think that dreams are in any way a proof of idealism.
Why not? Well... I need to think this through.
Idealism, I think, is basically the notion that there is no real mind-independent reality, whereas reality is in some major way mind-independent for the realist.
Dreams are most certainly mind-dependent, on the other hand. Dreaming is a psychological process. The raw materials for dreams are derived from reality, but they do not then become reality. They are processed and synthesized in a way that is not real.
Unfortunately for me, I had a dream the other night that I was dating Jennifer Lawrence, but when I woke up I realized that this wasn't reality (again, unfortunately, for so so many reasons).
There is a certain state of affairs in the world, in which two people, me and J-Law, are very clearly not involved in any kind of romantic entanglement - hey, I've never even met the lovely lady.
While my mind is responsible for the fact that I am cognizant of this state of affairs, my mind doesn't dictate this state of affairs. Even if I thought I was dating J-Law, I would not be dating J-Law. Similarly, even if I dream that I am dating J-Law, I am still not dating J-Law.
The reality does not correspond to the dream. And this has nothing to do with my own psychological states. I guess this is what you could call a physico-social fact about the world. Physical in the sense that it involves two physical beings, me and J-Law, and it involves a social fact about us - we are not dating.
The only role my mind is playing here is that I am conscious of this fact. I am aware of it, I can think about it, be upset about it, fantasize about it. But none of this changes the reality of the situation.
JupiterJess:If we're going down this line where altered states of consciousness (which dreaming is) is proof then why isn't being drunk vs being sober also evidence? There is an obvious phenomenal difference between the two.
Sleep/Dreaming is not classified as an altered state of consciousness, because altered states are waking states which diverge from normal waking states. However, daydreaming may be classified as an ordinary fluctuation of normal waking states, hence; an altered state.
Schmidt, T.T.; Majic, Timoslav. (2016). Empirische Untersuchung Veränderter Bewusstseinszustände. Handbuch Psychoaktive Substanzen. Part of the series Springer Reference Psychologie pp 1-25.
Your question is certainly valid: if dreaming, why not altered states as proof of idealism?
JupiterJess:I think dreams are evidence the waking experience is not [what] we think it is. I believe it is just a continuation of the same ontological sort but with the sensory inputs combined into it... if you focus on the between the waking moment or going into sleep you can actually feel the change first hand.
Non-conscious mental activity (e.g., automatic thoughts, forgotten memories, etc.) may be continuous, occurring simultaneously with conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions.
Wakefulness is a conscious mind-body condition. Sleep (including dreaming episodes) is a semi-conscious mind-body condition.
Hypnagogia (wakefulness-sleep transition) occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions. Lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis and sleep walking occur during hypnagogia.
Daydreaming also occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions, where parallel (controlled and automatic) information processing occurs.
Christoff, Kalina; Alan M. Gordon; Jonathan Smallwood; Rachelle Smith; Jonathan W. Schooler (2009-05-11). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8719.full.pdf
jkop:...dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'...We could, of course, discuss the nature of dreams, whether they have anything to do with the nature of reality and so on...
I agree. While this discussion on dreams of various sorts is interesting, the OP is going nowhere without an argument or even just a proposition (i.e., a complete declarative sentence). "Dreams, as proof of [absolute] idealism" is an incomplete sentence, hence; incoherent.
Metaphysician Undercover:The question though, is a question for the lucid dreamer who has control over the dream. How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? Wouldn't having control over it make it like a daydream? And in a daydream I know that what I am daydreaming is not real, because I have control over it.
Lucid dreaming occurs during hypnagogia (when both conscious, controlled processing and semi-conscious, automatic processing occur). Your sense of control in a lucid dream is a function of controlled processing, and the dream is a function of automatic processing.
What do you mean by "parallel to waking experience"? Daydreaming occurs while one is awake, it is an awake experience
Waking experience=perceptual experience of the external world.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 23:39#811820 likes
Reply to Terrapin Station
OK, so planning, thinking, conceptualizing, contemplation, and things like this are not waking experience, because they are not perceptual experience. I assume that they are "parallel to waking experience", like daydreaming. Is this what you mean by "parallel to waking experience", activity of the awake mind, which is not involved in perceptual experience?
Terrapin StationJune 26, 2017 at 23:40#811830 likes
OK, so planning, thinking, conceptualizing, contemplation, and things like this are not waking experience, because they are not perceptual experience. I assume that they are "parallel to waking experience", like daydreaming. Is this what you mean by "parallel to waking experience", activity of the awake mind, which is not involved in perceptual experience?
Yes.
Michael OssipoffJune 30, 2017 at 20:08#826290 likes
I've always had trouble pinning down precisely what absolute idealism IS so I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
The metaphysics that I propose, in the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, in the "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics" discussion-thread, is a pure Idealism metaphysics.
Reply to Question What it's particularly interesting about dreams is that the mind switches from a state of qualitatively perceived space and a psychologically felt time (duration) into a state of internal images which have a completely different sense of space and duration.
This might be understood from a holographic model of reality (when awake) where the mind via the brain is acting as a reconstruction wave generator illuminating the image "out there" (not in the brain) in a shared holographic universe. In a dream state, the mind used a different reference wave turns toward personal memory (also existing in an external holographic form) and reconstructs images based upon internal memory possibly to solve some problem or to visit a different form of existence.
I would speculate that the dream state is very close to what it may seem like after death. This is similar to Hamlet's speculation about death.
Michael OssipoffJune 30, 2017 at 23:54#826830 likes
I would speculate that the dream state is very close to what it may seem like after death..
Conceivably relatively soon after death.
But, of course, before long, there can't any longer be that much detail in the person's perception or experience.
At the eventual end of life, there'll be no time; no events;no perception of anything to overcome, improve or protect;.no identity, no concern,
That much shouldn't draw any disagreement, even from an Atheist Physicalist.
Whether the end of life occurs at the end of every particular life is a matter on which people disagree, and a matter, maybe off-topic here, that we needn't get into here.
That's another topic, maybe argued in a different discussion-thread somewhere at this forum..
This is similar to Hamlet's speculation about death.
...if Hamlet's words are interpreted very broadly.
It seems to me that the dream metaphor isn't close enough to be very helpful as an explanation or prediction.
Reported near-deat experiences (NDEs) are very similar to eachother, unlike the very diverse nature of dreams.
And, please, another issue we needn't get into is the matter of whether NDEs are "real".
As I've said elsewhere, the word "Real" isn't even metaphysically-defined.
And I remind you that life, itself, the body of every living-thing, including humans, is chemical.
Therefore every experience, of every person and other animal, has an ultimately chemical basis. So let's not quibble about what experience is "real".
But, of course, before long, there can't any longer be that much detail in the person's perception or experience.
This depends upon one's concept of the mind, which I perceive as memory embedded in a holographic universe. The brain within this access scenario is just acting as a reference/reconstruction generator of external memory (what is out there). What is perceived as private memory still exists, possibly as a personal dreamlike condition not dependent upon a brain.
As for Hamlet, the soliloquy refers to another type of state of being which he analogizes sleep, death, and dreams where the fear of what we may dream in sleep it's what keeps us going in life. A rather interesting point v of view which dovetails my own speculations about the nature of dreams.
To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_001.html#EYFeVJLzEaboUmLM.99
Michael OssipoffJuly 01, 2017 at 00:51#826970 likes
Rich--
Dinnertime now, so my reply will be tomorrow morning.
I had an hilarious dream last night, where I was in a service station and wanted to buy a can of Coke Zero. I looked around and noticed that things were in a bit of disarray, like they were moving out, or something. I asked the guy behind the counter if I could buy a can of Coke, he said, 'sure, only four million bucks'. I said (jokingly) 'that's a pity, I only have $3,750,000 on me.' He said 'I'll take it!' We both laughed, and I gave him four bucks in 50 cent coins. He directed me to a fridge, but I couldn't actually find a can of Coke Zero - every time I saw one and tried to put my hand on it, it turned out to be something else.
(Although I hasten to add, there's no way I would regard that as 'proof of absolute idealism'.)
Reply to Wayfarer Coke Zero living up to its name, hahaaaaaa, *slaps knee.*
Michael OssipoffJuly 01, 2017 at 17:57#827980 likes
Rich—
.
I’d said:
.
Conceivably relatively soon after death.
.
But, of course, before long, there can't any longer be that much detail in the person's perception or experience.
.
— Michael Ossipoff
.
You reply:
.
This depends upon one's concept of the mind, which I perceive as memory embedded in a holographic universe. The brain within this access scenario is just acting as a reference/reconstruction generator of external memory (what is out there). What is perceived as private memory still exists, possibly as a personal dreamlike condition not dependent upon a brain.
.
I’ll return to the last sentence later in this post, but, for now, regarding the above paragraph’s position in general:
.
That isn't parsimonious. If you’ve seen my initial post at my discussion-thread (A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics", at the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum), you know that I emphasize Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony for comparing metaphysicses and metaphysical statements. Minimize, or, better yet, completely avoid unnecessary or unjustified assumptions and brute-facts..
.
It’s agreed by all that, for each person, there’s a body. That’s what there’s undeniable evidence for. There’s really no evidence that we are anything other than our body. Any unsupported assumption is a violation of the Principle of Parsimony…a negative point in any comparison of metaphysicses.
.
The holographic universe memory-repository is an unnecessary assumption, and a comparison disadvantage, for a comparison with a metaphysics that doesn’t need any assumptions.
.
And you’d be asked to explain why there’s that holographic universe memory-repository. Otherwise, you’re positing it as a brute-fact.
.
My proposed metaphysics completely avoids assumptions and brute-facts.
.
Now, more about that paragraph’s last sentence:
.
I’ll re-copy it here:
.
What is perceived as private memory still exists, possibly as a personal dreamlike condition not dependent upon a brain.
.
Yes, I’m not saying that everything ends at death, or that nothing lasts after death.
.
Sure, that statement seems at-odds with my claim that you’re the body, and only that. So let me explain:
.
Some things can be agreed-on by advocates of very different metaphysicses, and such a thing is what I’ve started with, in my previous post to this thread. I said that it should be agreeable, even by an Atheists Physicalist.
.
I said that, at the end of life, before long, there’s no longer anything as elaborate as dreams. For that person, there’s no time, events, identity, concern, lack, incompletion, need, or worry—or any memory that there ever were such things, or that there’s was, or could be such a thing as, existence as a body.
.
That seems an uncontroversial statement, agreeable to most everyone, from Vedantists to Physicalists.
.
Timelessness is being approached and seen, if not already arrived at.
.
Of course the body is about to shut down, but the person doesn’t know that there ever was one anyway. The person is arriving, or has already arrived, at timelessness, and knows only its peace, completeness, and absence of concern and lack.
.
Michael Ossipoff
It’s agreed by all that, for each person, there’s a body. That’s what there’s undeniable evidence for. There’s really no evidence that we are anything other than our body.
Best current evidence is that everything is composed of quanta (non-material) and there is no reason to suppose that mind/body is anything but a continuum. This is about as simple as it can get. In addition, all current evidence is that information (memory) is never lost so they is no reason to supposed so. The simplest model for a universe is a holographic model which avoids the gymnastics of everything magically springing from a brain and genes and magically disappearing upon death.
Dependency on the body is only simple if one embraces the body as the Creator of all things which gets us into the realm of religion.
Comments (45)
I've just been reading passages about Nietzsche about how dreams reveal our deepest errors of thought, so I think right now I'm coming from a completely opposite place than your statement is. : )
It's hard to elaborate on using something so ethereal as dreams as the leading premise.
I would suggest that dreams are just simply a way in which we perceive reality. Thinking as a materialist, you have reality being generated without external input, some (supposedly) internal gibberish, which I don't believe.
Anyway, to answer your question, I think that dreams are also what can be regarded as a form of reality, although impermanent and vague. Why we don't acknowledge it as a form of reality is a deeper question about how we think about how reality works, as something external illuminating our mind as a projector displays still images in quick succession.
Though not a direct result of sensory stimulation, dreams are real because they are a result of short term memory (including sensory) consolidation which actually occurs during sleep.
Zhang, Jie (2004). Memory Process and the Function of Sleep. (6–6 ed.). Journal of Theoretics.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-6/Zhang.pdf
As such, they are not solely a product of the mind.
How could you not believe your dreams, while they are going on? That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, but when you awaken they are dismissed as unreal.
Quoting Question
I find this to be contradictory. If you acknowledge that your dreams are unreal, then how can you, at the same time, say that they can be regarded as a form of reality? It is true, that what we believe as real, at one time, may be dismissed as unreal at another time, but this requires a conscious decision, that what was formerly believed should now be disbelieved. This is sometimes called "changing your mind", and it involves the recognition of a difference between what is real, and what is believed to be real. So when I awaken from a dream, and what I believed as real within the dream is dismissed as unreal, what I am doing is changing my mind. I recognize that what I believe to be real, and what is actually real, are distinct, and this allows me to apprehend the fact that I believe my dream as real, when it is going on, but dismiss it as unreal, later.
Since this "changing my mind" is a case of deciding that what my mind has produced at a particular time, is not real, and opting for what my mind produces at another time as more real, how does this support idealism? What do you base the determination of "real" in, your belief?
This raises a few interesting points:
The experience of dreaming is real (actually occurs) for its duration.
Dream content (being the content of short-term memory) is also real, being the experiences (sensations, interoceptions, observations, introspections, etc.) which actually occurred during waking hours.
However, the sequence and/or association of these experiences in a dream are generally not the same as those found during waking hours. It is the sequence and/or association of experiences in a dream which are not real (in the sense that they didn't actually occur during waking hours).
I also fail to see the connection between dream reality and idealism.
I almost always know that I'm dreaming when I am. Dreams to me seem very similar to daydreams, imaginings when awake, etc. only I'm sleeping instead. So it's similar to knowing that I'm daydreaming or imagining something when I'm awake.
Yes. That was the idea I was getting at. That the experiences are qualitatively different is how we know that dreams are a different type of thing.
I don't agree that dream content is real in this way. The images in my dreams appear to be completely made up, and nothing I've ever experienced in my waking hours. However there appears to be some sort of word association, which relates the made up images to things I've already experienced. So for instance, there will be a person in my dream, who doesn't actually look at all like my brother, because the image is completely made up, but I will know that person in my dream as my brother. When I awaken, I'll wonder, why did my brother look like that in the dream?
Quoting Terrapin Station
If you know that you are dreaming when you are dreaming, and dreaming requires being asleep or else it would be daydreaming, then I can assume that you know when you are asleep. How do you know when you are asleep, and not awake? How do you differentiate between these two, what is the difference for you, between being asleep and being awake, so that you know when you are dreaming, and not just daydreaming?
Whatever anyone writes here, we should remember that dreams are something in the world. They have a psychological, cognitive, physical, and/or biological meaning, or explanation, or at least mechanism which have been studied.
Our typical philosophical ruminations should be held up to what science has figured out.
I think dreams are evidence the waking experience is not we think it is. I believe it is just a continuation of the same ontological sort but with the sensory inputs combined into it. The reason it feels different is due to evolution (if you believed you were still dreaming you could jump off a cliff to fly away or something), but if you focus on the between the waking moment or going into sleep you can actually feel the change first hand.
Would that be better than the rather hard to comprehend Hegelian conception of absolute idealism?
Dreaming/daydreaming are qualitatively different than waking experience. Daydreaming always occurs parallel to waking experience. Sleep-dreaming does not.
No, because dreams are neither sufficient evidence nor arguments for the truth of 'idealism'.
We could, of course, discuss the nature of dreams, whether they have anything to do with the nature of reality and so on...
Well, that's what we're discussing here. Mind to explain why they aren't sufficient evidence? What's your take here?
I have to admit the OP question was ill-formulated. It should read,
"Dreams, as proof of idealism?"
While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream".
Some dreams are horrible. Maybe they are manifestations of my worst subconscious fears, anxieties, etc., and my conscious self, though in a body that is asleep, works overtime on coping.
It's like the child in me, confronted with overwhelming trauma, telling himself that it is going to be okay--that it's just a dream and I'll get through it.
Then I wake up, process all of it, and say "Dreams are cruel!"
Take the fact that some dreams are lucid enough where we are in control of our surroundings. Would this not at the very least be a sort of an informal proof for the existence of God? How else would one explain the fact that the observer in the dream can have control over everything they are experiencing?
In other words, what's the philosophy of lucid dreams and it being in relation to reality or a sort of reality in itself?
In other words, let's assume that some person has the miraculous ability to realize every night that they are dreaming. This realization would allow the person to control their dreams for whatever purpose/desire for the period of the dream. Say one is studying some material, then in the dream, they can recall material, which this person is studying (doubtfully what one would do; but, a noble purpose to devote the dream space-time to). An alternative is that one can dream about music.
Isn't it fascinating that the mind can recall pieces of music with such detail during sleep (I'm sure I'm not the only one), effortlessly? In my case, I find it extraordinary that I can dream W.A. Mozart - Symphony No. 25 in G minor, K. 183 1'st movement without a hitch during sleep as opposed to the great difficulty one would have to recall the same piece during waking hours. If that isn't extraordinary, then I don't know what is.
What do you mean by "parallel to waking experience"? Daydreaming occurs while one is awake, it is an awake experience. I've done it many times and it's a completely different thing from dreaming when I am asleep.
Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO
Perhaps, but I'm talking about while the dream is going on. This is called lucid dreaming, when one can exercise some form of control over one's dreams.
Putting that aside, have you never woken up from a dream, to realize at the moment of awakening, that it was just a dream? In this case, the dream is being experienced as if what is happening in the dream is really happening.
Suppose that in a regular dream, what is being experienced in the dream is taken by the dreamer as being real, what is really happening. In a lucid dream, one has some control what is being dreamed. I've heard a lucid dreamer tell me that despite having some control over what is to happen in the dream, the dream is still experienced as if it is real. How do you think this could be possible? How could one have some control over what is happening, and yet experience it as if it is really happening?
I suppose it's the same as when we go to the movies. We don't stand up and shout, "That's not true!". Some form of suspension of disbelief is required to entertain a film as well as a dream.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That doesn't seem to be the case in my experience. I've had lucid dreams where I know it's a dream; but, still am in the domain of believing/entertaining what I am seeing as real as in waking life.
The lucid dreamer I spoke to claimed to have some control over what was happening in the dream. When we go to a movie we do not even consider the possibility of having control over what happens in the movie.
Quoting Question
The question though, is a question for the lucid dreamer who has control over the dream. How can one have control over what is happening in the dream, yet still believe that what is being seen in the dream is as real as what is seen in waking like? Wouldn't having control over it make it like a daydream? And in a daydream I know that what I am daydreaming is not real, because I have control over it.
The concept of 'control' is obviously not the same as in a dream as in waking life. The concept of control in a dream is maximized when one dreams lucidly. I have no qualms with calling a lucid dream a form of reality, just not occupied in the same space-time as in waking life.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because the dream IS real. There is no point in denying the beauty of a piece of music as well as the content of a dream. The content of a dream is not fundamentally different than that of waking life. It's just a state space where the set of possible configurations of 'things' (the possibilities in a sort of monastic space that is reality) is different than that of waking life.
I strongly disagree. In my experience the two are very different.
What grounds are there for assuming a differentiation between the two?
In my waking life there is a logical continuity of happenings. If I am walking down the street, in the next moment I will be continuing to walk down the street unless I decide to stop and do something else. In my dreams there is no such logical continuity. I may be walking down the street one moment, then in the next moment in a car, then in a house, etc.. The content is very random with very little logical continuity.
Well, sci-fi or fantasy movies are just as 'real' by the same logic; but, we don't have a prejudice against them as not being real as you claim dreams are.
Which means, I suppose, that I have always subscribed to some brand of realism, if one must fall into one of these two camps to some extent.
Since I basically reject idealism, I must not think that dreams are in any way a proof of idealism.
Why not? Well... I need to think this through.
Idealism, I think, is basically the notion that there is no real mind-independent reality, whereas reality is in some major way mind-independent for the realist.
Dreams are most certainly mind-dependent, on the other hand. Dreaming is a psychological process. The raw materials for dreams are derived from reality, but they do not then become reality. They are processed and synthesized in a way that is not real.
Unfortunately for me, I had a dream the other night that I was dating Jennifer Lawrence, but when I woke up I realized that this wasn't reality (again, unfortunately, for so so many reasons).
There is a certain state of affairs in the world, in which two people, me and J-Law, are very clearly not involved in any kind of romantic entanglement - hey, I've never even met the lovely lady.
While my mind is responsible for the fact that I am cognizant of this state of affairs, my mind doesn't dictate this state of affairs. Even if I thought I was dating J-Law, I would not be dating J-Law. Similarly, even if I dream that I am dating J-Law, I am still not dating J-Law.
The reality does not correspond to the dream. And this has nothing to do with my own psychological states. I guess this is what you could call a physico-social fact about the world. Physical in the sense that it involves two physical beings, me and J-Law, and it involves a social fact about us - we are not dating.
The only role my mind is playing here is that I am conscious of this fact. I am aware of it, I can think about it, be upset about it, fantasize about it. But none of this changes the reality of the situation.
Hence, realism.
Just a comment on this, but realism and idealism are compatible. See objective idealism. Perhaps also phenomenalism.
Sleep/Dreaming is not classified as an altered state of consciousness, because altered states are waking states which diverge from normal waking states. However, daydreaming may be classified as an ordinary fluctuation of normal waking states, hence; an altered state.
Schmidt, T.T.; Majic, Timoslav. (2016). Empirische Untersuchung Veränderter Bewusstseinszustände. Handbuch Psychoaktive Substanzen. Part of the series Springer Reference Psychologie pp 1-25.
Your question is certainly valid: if dreaming, why not altered states as proof of idealism?
Non-conscious mental activity (e.g., automatic thoughts, forgotten memories, etc.) may be continuous, occurring simultaneously with conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions.
Wakefulness is a conscious mind-body condition. Sleep (including dreaming episodes) is a semi-conscious mind-body condition.
Hypnagogia (wakefulness-sleep transition) occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions. Lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis and sleep walking occur during hypnagogia.
Daydreaming also occurs at the interface between conscious and semi-conscious mind-body conditions, where parallel (controlled and automatic) information processing occurs.
Christoff, Kalina; Alan M. Gordon; Jonathan Smallwood; Rachelle Smith; Jonathan W. Schooler (2009-05-11). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/21/8719.full.pdf
I agree. While this discussion on dreams of various sorts is interesting, the OP is going nowhere without an argument or even just a proposition (i.e., a complete declarative sentence). "Dreams, as proof of [absolute] idealism" is an incomplete sentence, hence; incoherent.
Lucid dreaming occurs during hypnagogia (when both conscious, controlled processing and semi-conscious, automatic processing occur). Your sense of control in a lucid dream is a function of controlled processing, and the dream is a function of automatic processing.
Interesting. I'll have to read up on this.
Waking experience=perceptual experience of the external world.
OK, so planning, thinking, conceptualizing, contemplation, and things like this are not waking experience, because they are not perceptual experience. I assume that they are "parallel to waking experience", like daydreaming. Is this what you mean by "parallel to waking experience", activity of the awake mind, which is not involved in perceptual experience?
Yes.
The metaphysics that I propose, in the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, in the "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics" discussion-thread, is a pure Idealism metaphysics.
Michael Ossipoff
This might be understood from a holographic model of reality (when awake) where the mind via the brain is acting as a reconstruction wave generator illuminating the image "out there" (not in the brain) in a shared holographic universe. In a dream state, the mind used a different reference wave turns toward personal memory (also existing in an external holographic form) and reconstructs images based upon internal memory possibly to solve some problem or to visit a different form of existence.
I would speculate that the dream state is very close to what it may seem like after death. This is similar to Hamlet's speculation about death.
Conceivably relatively soon after death.
But, of course, before long, there can't any longer be that much detail in the person's perception or experience.
At the eventual end of life, there'll be no time; no events;no perception of anything to overcome, improve or protect;.no identity, no concern,
That much shouldn't draw any disagreement, even from an Atheist Physicalist.
Whether the end of life occurs at the end of every particular life is a matter on which people disagree, and a matter, maybe off-topic here, that we needn't get into here.
That's another topic, maybe argued in a different discussion-thread somewhere at this forum..
...if Hamlet's words are interpreted very broadly.
It seems to me that the dream metaphor isn't close enough to be very helpful as an explanation or prediction.
Reported near-deat experiences (NDEs) are very similar to eachother, unlike the very diverse nature of dreams.
And, please, another issue we needn't get into is the matter of whether NDEs are "real".
As I've said elsewhere, the word "Real" isn't even metaphysically-defined.
And I remind you that life, itself, the body of every living-thing, including humans, is chemical.
Therefore every experience, of every person and other animal, has an ultimately chemical basis. So let's not quibble about what experience is "real".
Michael Ossipoff
This depends upon one's concept of the mind, which I perceive as memory embedded in a holographic universe. The brain within this access scenario is just acting as a reference/reconstruction generator of external memory (what is out there). What is perceived as private memory still exists, possibly as a personal dreamlike condition not dependent upon a brain.
As for Hamlet, the soliloquy refers to another type of state of being which he analogizes sleep, death, and dreams where the fear of what we may dream in sleep it's what keeps us going in life. A rather interesting point v of view which dovetails my own speculations about the nature of dreams.
To die, to sleep--
No more--and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep--
To sleep--perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
Read more at http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_001.html#EYFeVJLzEaboUmLM.99
Dinnertime now, so my reply will be tomorrow morning.
Michael Ossipoff
.
(Although I hasten to add, there's no way I would regard that as 'proof of absolute idealism'.)
Rich—
.
I’d said:
.
.
— Michael Ossipoff
.
You reply:
.
.
I’ll return to the last sentence later in this post, but, for now, regarding the above paragraph’s position in general:
.
That isn't parsimonious. If you’ve seen my initial post at my discussion-thread (A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics", at the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum), you know that I emphasize Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony for comparing metaphysicses and metaphysical statements. Minimize, or, better yet, completely avoid unnecessary or unjustified assumptions and brute-facts..
.
It’s agreed by all that, for each person, there’s a body. That’s what there’s undeniable evidence for. There’s really no evidence that we are anything other than our body. Any unsupported assumption is a violation of the Principle of Parsimony…a negative point in any comparison of metaphysicses.
.
The holographic universe memory-repository is an unnecessary assumption, and a comparison disadvantage, for a comparison with a metaphysics that doesn’t need any assumptions.
.
And you’d be asked to explain why there’s that holographic universe memory-repository. Otherwise, you’re positing it as a brute-fact.
.
My proposed metaphysics completely avoids assumptions and brute-facts.
.
Now, more about that paragraph’s last sentence:
.
I’ll re-copy it here:
.
.
Yes, I’m not saying that everything ends at death, or that nothing lasts after death.
.
Sure, that statement seems at-odds with my claim that you’re the body, and only that. So let me explain:
.
Some things can be agreed-on by advocates of very different metaphysicses, and such a thing is what I’ve started with, in my previous post to this thread. I said that it should be agreeable, even by an Atheists Physicalist.
.
I said that, at the end of life, before long, there’s no longer anything as elaborate as dreams. For that person, there’s no time, events, identity, concern, lack, incompletion, need, or worry—or any memory that there ever were such things, or that there’s was, or could be such a thing as, existence as a body.
.
That seems an uncontroversial statement, agreeable to most everyone, from Vedantists to Physicalists.
.
Timelessness is being approached and seen, if not already arrived at.
.
Of course the body is about to shut down, but the person doesn’t know that there ever was one anyway. The person is arriving, or has already arrived, at timelessness, and knows only its peace, completeness, and absence of concern and lack.
.
Michael Ossipoff
Best current evidence is that everything is composed of quanta (non-material) and there is no reason to suppose that mind/body is anything but a continuum. This is about as simple as it can get. In addition, all current evidence is that information (memory) is never lost so they is no reason to supposed so. The simplest model for a universe is a holographic model which avoids the gymnastics of everything magically springing from a brain and genes and magically disappearing upon death.
Dependency on the body is only simple if one embraces the body as the Creator of all things which gets us into the realm of religion.