Is a dream a object?

  • Thread starter yinyinwang
  • Start date

yinyinwang

Or is the meaning of a word a object?
What is the definition of object.
 
54
0
A object is physical, and a dream is non-physical, therefore, Dream is not an object. The meaning of a word is not an object, meaning is non-physical.
 

yinyinwang

then concepts are not objects to your definition of object.
 

Eh

671
1
Dreams are a process. A specific type of activity in the visual cortex and other parts of the brain, to be precise.
 

yinyinwang

Then a process is a object or not
 

Eh

671
1
No, a process is an evolving relationship among things.

Think of it this way. Is a picture an object? Sure. If we have a large number of these photos, and move them fast enough in sequence to give the illusion of a motion picture, is the animation a thing? By definition, it would seem not.
 
237
0
But if a process is an evolving relationship among things, things can be defined as objects, correct? In which case in order for a dream to be a process it must be an evolving relationship among objects. So does a dream CONTAIN objects, then?
 

Eh

671
1
If an image is an object, yes.
 
237
0
Therefore a dream consists of objects going through a process- just as wind, fire, and frogs (among other things) do. Wind would not be wind if it were still, fire would not be fire without the chemical reactions that make it up, and frogs would not be frogs without the chemical/mental processes going on within them. If a frog, then, is an object (and if wind and fire are objects) then a dream would appear to be just as validly an object.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Sikz
Therefore a dream consists of objects going through a process- just as wind, fire, and frogs (among other things) do. Wind would not be wind if it were still, fire would not be fire without the chemical reactions that make it up, and frogs would not be frogs without the chemical/mental processes going on within them. If a frog, then, is an object (and if wind and fire are objects) then a dream would appear to be just as validly an object.
The problem I think is not defining "object" first. My unabridged dictionary defines it as a "discrete, tangible thing." So did my MS Word dictionary.

By that definition, I don't think a dream qualifies as an object. We normally interpret a "thing" to be something that exists with constancy over a period of time. But a dream is a projection, similar to how a movie is a projection. The film being projected through to create a movie is a thing, but the projected image itself is not considered a thing because it doesn't have sufficient substance. Likewise, a dream is not substantial enough to be considered an object.
 
237
0
But would we really not consider the projection an object? We would consider a hologram an object, would we not? Likewise a hallucination might be considered an object.

Also, how do you know that a dream IS a projection after all?
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by Sikz
Therefore a dream consists of objects going through a process- just as wind, fire, and frogs (among other things) do. Wind would not be wind if it were still, fire would not be fire without the chemical reactions that make it up, and frogs would not be frogs without the chemical/mental processes going on within them. If a frog, then, is an object (and if wind and fire are objects) then a dream would appear to be just as validly an object.
Not if you define an object to be a still frame image. Of course, in reality everything in the universe is a process, so nothing would ever fit that definition. It's all about what definitions are acceptable.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Sikz
But would we really not consider the projection an object? We would consider a hologram an object, would we not? Likewise a hallucination might be considered an object.

Also, how do you know that a dream IS a projection after all?
The purpose of language is to be able to communicate, and part of that activity is being able to distinguish between things. So the word "object" was originated for a reason . . . it was to be able to describe, in communication, things with substance. Therefore, when you blur the distinction between substance and non-substance, all it does it create confusion for the sake of having a philosophical discussion. I don't see a real issue here . . . a dream is not an object based on the definition of an object.
 
237
0
Part of our original inquery is "what is the definition of an object", so we can't say "A dream is not an object based on the definition of an object" without first finding the definition of an object.

Simply saying "things with substance" is not enough. The definition must be discovered through a logical train of thought if it is to be discovered at all.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Sikz
Part of our original inquery is "what is the definition of an object", so we can't say "A dream is not an object based on the definition of an object" without first finding the definition of an object.

Simply saying "things with substance" is not enough. The definition must be discovered through a logical train of thought if it is to be discovered at all.
What's the matter . . . don't you have a dictionary? Why do we have to question the meaning of a word that's been around for centuries?

No English-speaking and/or educated person is confused about the meaning of "object." Now, if you have reason to suggest that there is more substance to dreams than is currently known, then please cite the evidence. That at least would make this discussion more than semantic sophistry.
 
237
0
We are not questioning the meaning of the WORD object, but of the concept. A little harder to grasp, but still...

In any case I do not have reason to suggest that dreams have more "substance" than you are implying. However, I have no reason to believe that they only have that amount of "substance" either. Depending upon your views of reality, human imagination, and consciousness (among other things), you might view dreams as more than simply an illusion caused by the brain of a sleeping person. It is entirely possible, for example, that dreams are just as "real" as waking experiences, especially if reality is subjective. If concepts exist somehow, then dreams, as concepts, exist in that same way. I could go on and on down the list of possibilities. The point is that no definitions should be taken for granted in this (or nearly any) philosophical enquiry.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Sikz
. . . I do not have reason to suggest that dreams have more "substance" than you are implying. However, I have no reason to believe that they only have that amount of "substance" either. Depending upon your views of reality, human imagination, and consciousness (among other things), you might view dreams as more than simply an illusion caused by the brain of a sleeping person. It is entirely possible, for example, that dreams are just as "real" as waking experiences, especially if reality is subjective. If concepts exist somehow, then dreams, as concepts, exist in that same way. I could go on and on down the list of possibilities. The point is that no definitions should be taken for granted in this (or nearly any) philosophical enquiry.
The subject here is not whether dreams are real! No one (except hard core materialists) is suggesting that something has to be substantial to be real. This is a sematic question . . . what is it that characterizes an "object"?

And regarding definitions being taken for granted, well, that is exactly the purpose of a definition -- to solidify meanings so people can communicate without confusion. But you seem to want to confuse the meaning of an object to create a reason for a philosophical discussion. I don't see the value in it unless you hve reason to claim a dream is more substantial than we now believe.

I say, this subject has no philosophical implications unless you know dreams have more substance than we suspect.
 

hypnagogue

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,221
2
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? :wink:) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
 
237
0
Ingenious... I agree completely.
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? :wink:) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
But there are things that wiggle out of that definition. Take blue. You see blue and don't have to think about it. Likewise I see blue and don't have to think about it. And we agree on the things we see as blue.

But what you see as blue and what I see as blue have no relationship to each other at all.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by hypnagogue
Can we agree that an 'object,' whatever it might be, must be objective in nature? (That doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, does it? :wink:) If so, the question of dreams being objects becomes rather trivial.
Now it's time for me to nitpick :wink: .

You are probably right to imply this question is trivial, but it is interesting to me as an opportunity to explore what a philosophical problem is versus simply understanding the use of language.

First, the word "object" precedes in meaning the word "objective," and each have several meanings. For example, besides something that is perceived as an entity and referred to by a name, an object can be the focus of someone's attention, an aim or purpose, grammer meanings, computer program meanings, optic meanings, and verb forms (as in "to object).

"Objective" likewise is used many ways, and just saying something is objective doesn't necessarily mean it is an "object." In fact, I could find no dictionary definition that exactly stated that, with the closest being "existing independently of mind or perception." If, Hypnagogue, you meant that because a dream is subjective to the person dreaming, it isn't an object, that overlooks the fact that with the definitions there are, a dream can be an object (or objective) in several ways (an object of study, for instance).

But I believe yinyinwang was specifically asking about whether a dream is an object in the sense of how we define a thing of substance. My answer to that is, in the English language a dream is not substantial enough to be considered an "object" in that regard. Assuming I've understood yinyinwang's question correctly, my point to Sikz has been that blurring distinctions between multiple definitions of a word doesn't make it a philosophical issue ( though it could be a science issue if one were suggesting there is more substance to a dream than we believe).
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
But there are things that wiggle out of that definition. Take blue. You see blue and don't have to think about it. Likewise I see blue and don't have to think about it. And we agree on the things we see as blue.

But what you see as blue and what I see as blue have no relationship to each other at all.
Right, but here is where we seem to be having several conversations going at once, each determined by which definition of object and objective we use.

"Blue" of course, can be quite easily objectified but measuring its frequency. But whether you experience that frequecy as I experience that frequency is a subjective matter.

Yet we still haven't decided if the frequency of blue is an "object," the way yinyinwang was asking. I think EH was on the right track to point out that processes, since they don't hold still long enough to have the nature of a "thing," are not objects (and frequency would be another of those). So I still see this question a language question.
 

yinyinwang

Is the magnet field an object? Is magnetic field a universal object? Is space an object? Is time an object? Is motion an object?
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by yinyinwang
Is the magnet field an object? Is magnetic field a universal object? Is space an object? Is time an object? Is motion an object?
Thank you for clarifying your question more . . . and I would say most of those, in the English language, would not be considered "objects." A chair is an object, as is a tree, a goose, a book, a printer . . . things you can stick the article "a" in front of mostly qualify because one is pointing to a distinct entity that can be given boundaries.
 

yinyinwang

Originally posted by Sikz
We are not questioning the meaning of the WORD object, but of the concept. A little harder to grasp, but still...

I wonder if the word is defined correctly or sufficiently. otherwise there may not be so much arguement.
 

Related Threads for: Is a dream a object?

  • Posted
Replies
15
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
60
Views
6K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
5K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top