Is there any real difference between reality and a dream?

[Sorry!]

"The brain controls the other organ systems of the body. Brains exert control either by activating muscles, or by causing secretion of chemicals such as hormones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain


As far as medicine and science is concerned, the mind does not exist and consciousness is a state of the brain.. This is hardly news to anyone.
If you are asserting that you are not your brain but the product of your brain, then i agree.

It appears that the resultant emergent phenomenon - "Mind" can in some cases control the brain.

Here are some interesting reputable reports, where mind appears to control the brain & body:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v295/n5846/abs/295234a0.html

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html[/URL]

[MEDIA=youtube]madoDvtKEes[/MEDIA]


What controls the brain(or if it controls itself!?) is a huge topic. If you feel like it, you can open a new thread on it.[/QUOTE]
You're still assuming that you are your brain lol. I'm saying we're just a by-product.

This being the case when we dream our brain CAN "know" what's happening even though we do not.

 

[WaveJumper]

You're still assuming that you are your brain lol. I'm saying we're just a by-product.

On this same page, I said the following:

If you are asserting that you are not your brain but the product of your brain, then i agree.

So are you at all reading my posts before replying?

This being the case when we dream our brain CAN "know" what's happening even though we do not.

"Know" is a strong word, you can never prove this assertion. You assert that when one is asleep, his consciousness is somehow functioning apart from one's brain.

 

[Sorry!]

On this same page, I said the following:
So are you at all reading my posts before replying? "Know" is a strong word, you can never prove this assertion. You assert that when one is asleep, his consciousness is somehow functioning apart from one's brain.

Yes I am reading everything you also provided a wikipedia reference which indicates to me that you are still assuming that you are your brain.

No I'm not asserting that when you are asleep your conciousness is not functioning apart from someone's brain. It's not functioning at all or very minimally. When you become conscious this is lucid dreaming.

Your brain is doing what we call dreams for a very specific biologically important reason. Many animals dream for this exact same reason.

 

[WaveJumper]

Yes I am reading everything you also provided a wikipedia reference which indicates to me that you are still assuming that you are your brain.

It's hard to be certain, and the certainty implied in your posts is unwarranted. Consciousness is a creation of the brain and the illusion of "you" is a creation of the brain as well. I do however see where you are coming from and acknowledged several times now, that i favoured the presence of consciousness as something supervenient on the brain. But technically, as far as we know, it's all a creation of the brain and we are still just brains producing the illusion of "you".

No I'm not asserting that when you are asleep your conciousness is not functioning apart from someone's brain. It's not functioning at all or very minimally. When you become conscious this is lucid dreaming.

Life is a pretty realistic dream then. This hypothesis will lead you to believe that even gods can't be sure if they are not dreaming.

Your brain is doing what we call dreams for a very specific biologically important reason. Many animals dream for this exact same reason.

What reason?

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,

Holocene, you wrote

It seems to me, that if every recollection of our lives is but the result of electrical processes in the brain, then there ought to be no real difference, nor no bias in terms of "importance", between so-called "reality" and a "dream".

Both reality and dream states exist and have a common source, the whole of our body/mind interaction, our consciousness.

The big difference, imo, would correspond to the level at which our consciousness is related and responds to the environment in which it lives in.

During reality, from the moment you awake, consciousness is aimed at living our day to day life, whatever it may consist of, in direct relation to the external environment. Consciousness and resultants from our mind’s decisional processes will put our bodies in motion, from a rest state, in order to make it happen, up until it’s time to go to sleep.

Once asleep, the aim of our consciousness has changed and relaxed the focus on sensory perceptions to a monitoring level that will, if need be, summon the body/mind interaction to a wake state. If no need, then the sleep state can establish itself up until it’s time to wake-up.

Now, dreaming, of course, is one of the different phases of sleep and is most entirely mind dependant (meaning to say that a dream could be influenced by some ‘no emergency’ feedback such as sounds, smells or contacts) an as such can have a more or less strong effect on the body’s functions depending on the mind state that the type of dream creates, all the way up to somnambulism.

But it is still not awakened reality, as the situations and reactions depicted in a dream are not coming from the focussed body/mind on external environment but are mostly mind driven in a closed loop environment within itself.

A dreamer having a lucid dream, where the created environmental stimuli are perceived in such a way that the reactions become ‘willed’, can still be brought out of it by a ‘real’ external agent.

Mind you, we can also experience a pullback from external to internal domain while in a daydream state, an interesting phenomenon that is part of the awakened conscious reality.

So, “reality” and “dream” experiences are both part of life but reality, because it is linked to awakened experiences as they relate to the external objective environment, is more important and becomes the chosen realm in which life as we know it evolves.


Regards,

VE

 

[frankinstein]

To settle the agrugement I believe brain anatomy is required with MRI or similar scans to see what parts of the brain are active during dream state. One thing for sure that motor and sensory neural systems are shut down, unless the person has a sleep disorder. So just from that indication would suggest that reality is different from dreams simply from the difference in the sensory inputs. Think about it, trying remembering how something felt like petting your dog, the memory of the event doesn't come close to how it actually felt.

So yes there is a difference between reality and dreams since dreams are generated from pure memories and no senory inputs. Of course there are those who have a condition where remembering something or just thinking about something can be extremely life like, I believe its called over visualization. These people can recall a painful event and actually feel the pain. So it would seem the ability to recall sensation to the degree of how something actually felt is an abnormality that nature, at least in most of us, insured we would not have the capacity to do...

Frank

 

[Entropee]

If, after peeing, I don't feel the urge to pee any longer, I'm awake.
If, after peeing, I perplexingly still feel the urge to pee, I'm dreaming.

I sh*ite you not.

Unfortunately my past experiances tend to show that peeing in a dream results in the fact that you just peed all over your sheets... I sheet you not.

 

[the_awesome]

Dunno if this has been mentioned:

But do blind people dream? Can they dream? As far as i know, you can only dream when you have experienced reality. What about a person who is blind and deaf?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dunno if this has been mentioned:

It has. Start at post 28.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2436935&postcount=28

But do blind people dream? Can they dream? As far as i know, you can only dream when you have experienced reality. What about a person who is blind and deaf?

What is this "reality" you speak of experiencing? Do you think your reality with your eyes is any more real than a deaf-blind's reality with touch and smell? You dream what you experience.

 

[Entropee]

Haha sorry Dave I didnt realize I quoted you from like a year ago.

 

[the_awesome]

You dream what you experience.

Exactly. So are dreams are merely experiences - things that have happened in the past, and things that you alter while beings unconscious. So what is reality then? Well...reality exists even without your conscious mind. You don't need to observe something in order for it to exist. But you need to experience something in order for it to have existed (a dream).

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Exactly. So are dreams are merely experiences - things that have happened in the past, and things that you alter while beings unconscious. So what is reality then? Well...reality exists even without your conscious mind. You don't need to observe something in order for it to exist. But you need to experience something in order for it to have existed (a dream).

We don't know for that sure. We probably won't know until we can actually project dreams on a screen. Right now, you just have to rely on what the dreamer tells you was in their dream. Which obviously isn't very scientific.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

On this same page, I said the following:



So are you at all reading my posts before replying?





"Know" is a strong word, you can never prove this assertion. You assert that when one is asleep, his consciousness is somehow functioning apart from one's brain.

You are conscious during dreams. Or else you wouldn't remember them. You could almost say that in dreams, you are conscious of the unconscious. There has to be some consciousness. Lucid dreams are totally conscious and can signal the outside world through preestablished patterns, like eye blinking. That's how the first neuroscientist proved lucid dreaming.

Your mind knows what is up when it is sleeping. Some part of it does anyway. It has some inkling of what is going on in reality. It can detect signal among the noise. You are more likely to wake up when your name is called than somebody else's for example.

"Stephen: Basically, people were thinking of the dream as a product of the unconscious mind, and of Freud’s idea that the dream is the royal road to the unconscious. From that they seemed to develop the mistaken idea that dreams are themselves unconscious somehow, but they’re not, they’re conscious experiences, otherwise you couldn’t report them. It’s true that the source of dreams is largely unconscious and we don’t know why things happen in the typical dream. In that sense much of the dream content is unconsciously determined but that doesn’t mean that the experience is unconscious"

I am very interested in the intuition and spur of genius that has been reported from dreams. Wolfgang Pauli was big on dreams and claimed they gave him fantastic insight into his science. Things he never considered in his waking life. Einstein was also big on intuition and was inspired by his dreams.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are conscious during dreams. Or else you wouldn't remember them.

Are you merely stating your personal opinion on this or you do have something to back it up?

Because, I believe the state of sleep - whether dreaming or otherwise - is generally considered not conscious.

 

[Sorry!]

@WaveJumper:
There are of course multiple theories on the function of dreams the most prevelant one now though is that the brain uses it as a way to make lifes events less traumatic and to make the brain function more efficiently in traumatic situations. This theory was put forward a Finnish scientist who I have forgotten the name of.

Another prevelant theory is that we dream about the previous days unfulfilled emotional arousals. So when we wake up the next day we wake up less stressed than the previous day.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Are you merely stating your personal opinion on this or you do have something to back it up?

Because, I believe the state of sleep - whether dreaming or otherwise - is generally considered not conscious.

I quoted this guy:

Stephen LaBerge is a psychophysiologist and a leader in the scientific study of lucid dreaming.

His technique of signalling to a collaborator monitoring his EEG with agreed-upon eye movements during REM became the first published, scientifically-verified signal from a dreamer's mind to the outside world.

Stephen: Basically, people were thinking of the dream as a product of the unconscious mind, and of Freud’s idea that the dream is the royal road to the unconscious. From that they seemed to develop the mistaken idea that dreams are themselves unconscious somehow, but they’re not, they’re conscious experiences, otherwise you couldn’t report them. It’s true that the source of dreams is largely unconscious and we don’t know why things happen in the typical dream. In that sense much of the dream content is unconsciously determined but that doesn’t mean that the experience is unconscious.

http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Laberge_WakingDreamer.html

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sure there's more to his claim than what you've quoted. I hope there is, because this:

I quoted this guy:
...they’re conscious experiences, otherwise you couldn’t report them.

is just silly logic.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

I'm sure there's more to his claim than what you've quoted. I hope there is, because this:

is just silly logic.

How so? What other unconscious experiences have you ever reported?

 

[DaveC426913]

How so? What other unconscious experiences have you ever reported?

Well, dreams.

You can't use circular logic to demonstrate that dreams are a conscious experience. The burden is on you to show that dreams are a conscious experience.

How does reporting chan ge anything? I am reporting the memory of the dream.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

There are different levels of conscious here. Conscious as in self aware. Or conscious as in being able to perceive. My cat is conscious in the sense that he can perceive. But he is not self aware. So I say all dreams are conscious because were are perceving things, and then remembering these perceptions.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? Can you think in your dreams? Reason? The reasoning may be flawed but you can still do it. You try to problem solve in dreams.

Conscious#

1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See synonyms at aware.

A: Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

2. Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious

 

[DaveC426913]

There are different levels of conscious here. Conscious as in self aware. Or conscious as in being able to perceive. My cat is conscious in the sense that he can perceive. But he is not self aware. So I say all dreams are conscious because were are perceving things, and then remembering these perceptions.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming?

Conscious#

1. Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See synonyms at aware.
2. Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered.

# Capable of thought, will, or perception: the development of conscious

None of this demonstrates that a dream is a conscious state as opposed to an unconscious state (which is the crux of our disagreement). You have to also demonstrate that the unconscious state does not include any of the elements found in dreaming.


I must go to bed now. Do not say anything interesting for 8 more hours.

 

[the_awesome]

There are different levels of conscious here. Conscious as in self aware. Or conscious as in being able to perceive. My cat is conscious in the sense that he can perceive. But he is not self aware. So I say all dreams are conscious because were are perceving things, and then remembering these perceptions.

What about animals and emotions in dreams? I've watched my dog whimper while asleep - perhaps because she was dreaming of her fellow brothers and sisters?

Maybe a dream unifies the body, mind, and spirit. It provides you with insight into ourselves and a means for self-exploration. But if that were true, then would the animal have a spirit?

Or maybe you are in some form of a conscious state...one which is yet to be defined? When you dream of falling, you wake up before you hit the ground. You are conscious in knowing that when you hit the ground its gunna hurt. But your mind is "tricked" into thinking it is real. We know that when you sleep...your mind switches off many of its functions. Functions which could be crucial in recognizing that the world we see (in a dream), is actually complete ********. Or maybe its your brain creating an illusion? We all know how easily your eyes can be tricked.

 

[ninar]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex... depending of its estructure, capabilities, and limitations, it will direct, control, purge, reorganize, etc. info and activities in a way that suits best the ocasion... simply put: we are sometimes kinda*: conscious while we sleep; asleep when we are late at night studying; in a coma-like state when we are passed out on alcohol, etc. And even, sometimes, a combination of all those, in different magnitudes.

 

[the_awesome]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex... depending of its estructure, capabilities, and limitations, it will direct, control, purge, reorganize, etc. info and activities in a way that suits best the ocasion... simply put: we are kinda* conscious while we sleep; we are kinda* asleep when we are late at night studying; we are kinda* in a coma-like state when we are passed out on alcohol, etc.

Well put :)

 

[DaveC426913]

Typically it will be said we are unconscious during sleep, but I think that's just the naming, we do have different states of perception, in which different processes dominate our activities. The discussion just seems pointless to me, the ways of mind is so complex...

That's kind of like saying molecules are so complex there's little point in naming them. Or animals. Or star formation. your suggestion is that we just give up.

 

[DaveC426913]

None of this demonstrates that a dream is a conscious state as opposed to an unconscious state (which is the crux of our disagreement). You have to also demonstrate that the unconscious state does not include any of the elements found in dreaming.


I must go to bed now. Do not say anything interesting for 8 more hours.

You may resume now.

 

[ninar]

I believe there is a difficult to exactly distinguish between what it is an alteration of a state, and what is actually a totally different phenomenon. And, well, the discussion I have seen here, I think it recurs to a set of terms that tend to antagonize to each other, or seem to inherently imply something that may not very well describe what I believe requires a more... subtlety in drawing distinctions or in attaching to certain definitions.

 

[ninar]

But no, I would never imply to give it up, maybe I was too euphoric at the moment haha

 

[Freeman Dyson]

You may resume now.

Let me try a different avenue this time..

Lucid dreaming. Would you say that lucid dreams are conscious? Lucid dreamers can control and construct their dreams. They are aware that they are dreaming and play with it.

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

 

[WaveJumper]

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

We believe we are the 'normal' ones because our hallucinations are shared by more than 6 billion people. Another reason is that our 'hallucinations' appear meaningful and behave according to strict laws and constants, and there is an obvious way for us to follow towards progress and more pleasing 'hallucinations'(oooops life).

 

[Freeman Dyson]

We believe we are the 'normal' ones because our hallucinations are shared by more than 6 billion people. Another reason is that our 'hallucinations' appear meaningful and behave according to strict laws and constants, and there is an obvious way for us to follow towards progress and more pleasing 'hallucinations'(oooops life).

As somebody once said, reality is nothing but a collective hunch.

Who is to say the scizophrenic's reality isn't the real one? Just because it is in the minority?

 

[Sorry!]

As somebody once said, reality is nothing but a collective hunch.

Who is to say the scizophrenic's reality isn't the real one? Just because it is in the minority?

This is an old argument and it has been beaten silly. People still cling to it however.
Yes, reality is based on our perceptions but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or 'unfalsifiable' in the 'reality' we live in.

When a person hallucinates it is not only provable scientifically (by studying the brain) but also by cross referencing with other people/animals/instruments.

If no other person can see this hallucination, no other animal can sense it and no instruments detect it. Then it's quite safe to say that this person who is hallucinating is indeed removed from reality.

What is reality? As I said it's based on our perceptions of what we sense 'around' us.

 

[kote]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

 

[DaveC426913]

Let me try a different avenue this time..

Lucid dreaming. Would you say that lucid dreams are conscious? Lucid dreamers can control and construct their dreams. They are aware that they are dreaming and play with it.

Are you people who are hallucinating conscious?

The issue of lucid dreaming is admittedly somewhere in the middle - even you acknowledge that (or it wouldn't be under discussion).

But how does that help us answer the original question?

Personally, I think it makes my case, since the acknowledgment of a 'middle' requires the existence of two 'ends' opposite each other.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm skipping the thread here, but I'll point out I think this question is very related to ethics and morality. The real world is where we and other people exist. You are not morally responsible for killing an imaginary dream ninja. You are morally responsible for killing your real neighbor.

One thing you can say about the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where morality and ethics must live.

By the same same logic, the question is related to physics, since the real world is where horses are wingless and trees grow on Earth. Imaginary pegasi and deep space trees exist in the dream world, therefore the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where physics must live.

In short, your logic accomplishes little. It's effectively circular: "reality is where real things exist. Dreamland is where imaginary things exist".

 

[kote]

By the same same logic, the question is related to physics, since the real world is where horses are wingless and trees grow on Earth. Imaginary pegasi and deep space trees exist in the dream world, therefore the difference between reality and a dream is that reality is where physics must live.

In short, your logic accomplishes little. It's effectively circular: "reality is where real things exist. Dreamland is where imaginary things exist".

Interesting. So is your claim that we are just as morally responsible for our actions in dreams as we are for our actions in reality?

I really don't see the point here, unless that is your claim. I was responding the OP's question with a connection to an important related topic that hasn't been discussed.

Epistemologically there is nothing interesting to talk about. You have your perceptions, and typically they are relatively continuous and vivid. You call this "reality" to distinguish it from occasional, mostly less vivid, dreams or hallucinations. You have no evidence that it is not a dream or even that anyone or anything else exists. Referencing consensus or 6 billion other people is trivially circular and invalid. Arguments about whether or not you are conscious during dreams are semantic. Pick a definition for "conscious" - it's irrelevant to anything meaningful.

The thread could end with that. We could say that we don't have any evidence for such a thing as reality, so the OP's question is meaningless and unanswerable. The OP, however, implicitly assumes that there is an objective reality. Given this assumption, the only meaningful difference between objective reality and subjective hallucination would be the applicability of morality. The only other difference is, as you said, reality is real and dreams are dreams.

 

[Sorry!]

We have really no ethical code during our sleep because we are in a state of altered conciousness. So you can kill that guy or slap that girl and it won't bother you in the slightest.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

The issue of lucid dreaming is admittedly somewhere in the middle - even you acknowledge that (or it wouldn't be under discussion).

But how does that help us answer the original question?

Personally, I think it makes my case, since the acknowledgment of a 'middle' requires the existence of two 'ends' opposite each other.

Well I wanted to establish if you thought lucid dreams were conscious before I could make my next point. Do you think there can be any conscious in sleep or dream state? If vivid dreams are conscious, then what is the exact mental state that changes from a regular dream to a vivid one? Does the conscious "light" come on? Often vivid dreams start off as regular dreams. What is the "switch" that changes? Vivid dreamers can recognize and take control of normal dreams.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? If so, would you consider yourself conscious during that?

Here is that guy again talking about lucidity in dreams:

Let’s suppose I’m having a lucid dream. The first thing I think is, "Oh this is a dream, here I am." Now the "I" here is who I think Stephen is. Now what’s happening in fact is that Stephen is asleep in bed somewhere, not in this world at all, and he’s having a dream that he’s in this room talking to you. With a little bit of lucidity I’d say, "this is a dream, and you’re all in my dream." A little more lucidity and I’d know you’re a dream figure and this is a dream-table, and this must be a dream-shirt and a dream-watch and what’s this? It’s got to be a dream-hand and well, so what’s this? It’s a dream-Stephen! So a moment ago I thought this is who I am and now I know that it’s just a mental model of who I am.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

This is an old argument and it has been beaten silly. People still cling to it however.
Yes, reality is based on our perceptions but that doesn't mean that they are wrong or 'unfalsifiable' in the 'reality' we live in.

When a person hallucinates it is not only provable scientifically (by studying the brain) but also by cross referencing with other people/animals/instruments.

If no other person can see this hallucination, no other animal can sense it and no instruments detect it. Then it's quite safe to say that this person who is hallucinating is indeed removed from reality.

What is reality? As I said it's based on our perceptions of what we sense 'around' us.

Who says the true reality has to be scientific? Or that science would work in it? You are biased by the standards of the reality we live in.

I am not saying dreams are the real reality either btw.

 

[DaveC426913]

Interesting. So is your claim that we are just as morally responsible for our actions in dreams as we are for our actions in reality?

No, my claim is that morals and ethics do not help define conscious from unconscious. In less diplomatic language, I think your initial statement is irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well I wanted to establish if you thought lucid dreams were conscious before I could make my next point. Do you think there can be any conscious in sleep or dream state? If vivid dreams are conscious, then what is the exact mental state that changes from a regular dream to a vivid one? Does the conscious "light" come on? Often vivid dreams start off as regular dreams. What is the "switch" that changes? Vivid dreamers can recognize and take control of normal dreams.

Have you ever had a dream where you knew you were dreaming? If so, would you consider yourself conscious during that?

Here is that guy again talking about lucidity in dreams:

Agreed. I definitely think there is a continuum from consciouisness to unconsciousness, yes. i.e. lucid dreaming definitely has some elements of consciousness about it.

Personally, I have all range of dreams and conscious-unconscious states. I often have vivid dreams, I've had dreams where I know I'm dreaming, I've had dreams where I have been - repeatedly - able to change the outcome, and I've had waking states that blur the line with unconscious (as I'm falling asleep I am often able to suspend myself in a state where I am conscious yet unable to focus on a thought before it slips out of ... my thoughts. I can keep this state indefinitely, and can observe myself in this state. "Well, isn't that interesting. I cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I was thinking about getting ready to go to work ... and ... Well isn't that interesting. I again cannot remember what I was just thinking about. I wonder how long I can keep this up.").


While I agree that, in lucid dreaming, there is defintely an element of consciousness, it does not follow that when you are dreaming you are in a conscious state, which is the original claim that I am refuting.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who says the true reality has to be scientific?
Or that science would work in it?

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).



Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

 

[kote]

No, my claim is that morals and ethics do not help define conscious from unconscious. In less diplomatic language, I think your initial statement is irrelevant.

What does the definition of consciousness have to do with whether or not there is a meaningful distinction between the experience of true and false ontologies? The entire discussion of levels of consciousness presupposes brains are real and dreams are a function of brain states. This assumes an answer to the original question.

Philosophy has a long way to go before discussions of brain states can tell us anything about basic ontology, starting with solving the problem of induction. Until we get past that, psychology has no place in deciding whether or not we are living in a matrix induced dream or what it would mean if we were. Meaning still belongs to the realm of ethics and aesthetics.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

These sentences suggest a misguided underestanding of what science is.

Something "being scientific" or "science not working on it" makes no sense. "Being scientific" is a behaviour of a person, not a property of an object. It just means being rational and methodical. You apply scientific methods to understand a phenomenon in an attempt to model (explain) the phenomenon. If you can't model it accurately enough for your liking then it is simply that you don't have the right model yet and don't know enough about it.

The only way science "doesn't work" on something is when you do not have any observations to go on (such as God or pre-Big Bang).
Also: "True reality"? As opposed to what? "false reality"? C'maaaaaaan.

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

 

[Sorry!]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality. The fact that the dream world is immoral doesn't make it any less real. So my argument is that the incomprehensibilty of it shouldn't make any less real in the same fashion. We agree that that the dream world is less comphrensible than the waking world. Does the fact that we can make more sense of A than B, really make A more "real"? Einstein said:

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

A universe that isn't comprehensible would still be a universe ,would it not?. I'm not saying our science can't test the dream world at all. I am saying why must the true reality be able to be scientifically measured? Why must it bow to us and our methods? What law states that this must happen? I am essentially subsituting the word "scientific" for "comprehensible" here. Who says the world has to be comprehensible, and why is that the standard for being more real? Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream. And you are holding it against the dream world. We can do experiments and logic here, but not there. It holds no power in the dream world. One can't be scientific in their dreams. Or can they?

I don't recall anyone saying this. Quit taking things out of context and arguing... it's like you're basically arguing with yourself.

Do I believe that we can only know 'reality' based on our perceptions of it? Yes. Do you? I don't know or care it has nothing to contribute to this conversation.

 

[DaveC426913]

No doubt science works in this world. We can be rational and figure things out. My point is, who says it has to be that way? Who says that's what reality must necessarily contain? It's applying our conscious values and standards, like morality as you stated, to a different reality.

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

Because it seems the argument is that because the waking state can be made more sense of that it is more real. The waking state is more "scientific". And by that I mean more comprehensible. When I say science doest work in dreams, I meant you can't sit down in your dream and do an experiment and some equations. So science "doesnt work" in a dream.

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

You didn't comprehend a word I said.

Science is not a "thing that works" or doesn't work. Science is a method. If things seem irrational or incomprehensible, we can ask questions, make observations and deduce how things work, or don't work. Whether those things do or do not work does not invalidate the technique for testing anything.

The only thing required for science to work is
1] a rational mind
2] a sense attached to that rational mind

The only reason science doesn't "work" in a dream because requirement 1], above, is missing. if you could get a rational mind in your dream, you could apply scientific techniques.

The fact that the only thing you have to measure the forty-mile tall unicorn is a beachball of helium-flavoured macaroni does not render science inoperative.

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

 

[Buckethead]

I'm sure there's more to his claim than what you've quoted. I hope there is, because this:

is just silly logic.

I had an in depth conversation awhile back with a fellow lucid dreamer/obeer about this very topic. My initial stand was that lucid dreams/obes can and are considered to be full states of consciousness while the event was occurring, but that common dreams in my opinion may not occur consciously until after one wakes up from sleep at which time the subject is then free to put a consciouness to what was otherwise just non-conscious electrical activity in the brain. She won the debate when she reminded me that if a person is awakened in the middle of a dream, is the dream not interrupted at that very point. So I would have to vote on this one that indeed a person must be not fully conscious, but conscious nontheless. Of course it does depend on the definition of consciousness. If being in a passive state of listening and watching without any self awareness is not considered consciousness, then the common dreamer would of course not have any consciousness.

 

[DaveC426913]

But what if the dream world actually is irrational and incomprensible at its bottom?

I am talking about the irrationality of the dream enviroment, regardless of the rationality of the dreamer. What could invalidate the techniques for testing is the lack of existence of any patterns to test. The scientific method was developed for figuring out the waking world, not for figuring out the dream world. You seem to have trouble imagining a world that humans couldn't make sense of through the scientific method.

Science is a method that may not be applicable to all things. Yes, it is a thing that works or doesn't work. The reason science may not work in a dream is because the dream is in another world that doesn't obey any laws of science! What else is required besides a rational mind and senses, is a comprenhisble environment where patterns emerge and you can deduce things with that mind and senses. The environment must be rational as well. You seem to assume this is characteristic of every environment. I say you are assuming too much. We should assume nothing. Can you imagine a world where science wouldn't work? Even if you manage to get a rational mind into a dream, if the dream world is still absurd with no patterns, your rational mind won't help you one bit. Because ration and sense don't rule here. You are in alice in wonderland. up is down. but tomorrow, up might be west. Freud thought that metaphor was the logic or language of dreams. Figuring out dreams is almost like figuring out poetry. They are subjective experiences. What if the same unicorn is measured differently by each dreamer, for example? What if only some dreamers can see the unicorn at all? What if no patterns emerge? Would that make it less real?

You're missing the point of the technique. The rational mind will observe and conclude that certain cause and effect assumptions do not hold true. That is still a perfectly valid observation. Granted, the rational mind might not get very far in learning the rules about his world, but that isn't a flaw in the technique.

 

[Evo]

I find the "lucid dreaming" thing I see gathering popularity on the internet rather funny.

Since I was a child, I had the ability to stop, rewind, and change whatever I was dreaming. I called it "directed dreaming" when I described it to people, because I was like a movie director. Of course, this as after I realized other people did not have the ability to control their dreams. I can also create dreams by starting the dream before I fall asleep. If I awake from a dream, I can decide if I want to continue the dream when I go back to sleep. In other words, I'd say that I am aware and in control perpaps 98% of the time. That doesn't mean that I think that I am able to go other places *in reality* in a dream. No.