Dreaming is not 'completely subjective'

I liked this question of Vkothii's on another thread so....
I do not think dreams are completely subjective since they often include accurate representations of the waking world. I have even realized things about, for example, relationships between other people that I did not realize consciously during waking and could later verify by talking to the people involved.
So I think it is sometimes accurate in this banal way about 'waking reality' and that this can be on occasion verified.

Further. Dreams are an experiences of something. I don't limit this to my own psychology or issues only. I do believe that one can experience things while dreaming that are occuring elsewhere. But that is rather controversial. So I will still to keeping my foot in the door and then take that issue on later.

As I said dreams are experiences of something. Often in symbols - which are often subjective, or individualized - I get experiences of myself or my life or current issues or my relationships that are accurate. I can dream about a parent in the role of a boss - has happened - and realize that they have similar ways of communicating or that I am reacting to the boss as if they were like my father or about to be at any moment.

While this information pertains to me, primarily, it is not simply subjective. It reveals facts about me which can also be verified in the experience of others.

I also think it is similar to strong atheism to say that dreams are completely subjective. This is a claim to knowing what dreams are, or at the very least what they cannot possibly be. This is a very strong claim.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, the point is that there is no such thing as "completely subjective" if it implies the non-existence of any objects.

Subjectivity is of objects, Objectivity is of subjects.
That is, dream objects are subjective. Or a dreaming subject sees and hears dream objects.

Now we can try to define what any of these subjects or objects is, or is bounded by, say.
Is all objective (epistemological, or phenomenological) experience, inside a subjective "brain", or can we say that there is no subject, only objects, some of which "perceive", or imagine the world "passing by"?

Is a memory just a bunch of chemical objects and electrons whizzing around? Or does it have a kind of permanent or transient structure?
And so on.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Meaning and value are subjective.
Objects are objective.
Objects can have value and/or meaning to someone. These qualities are subjective, the object itself is not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean an object is just whatever it is, and can mean different things, subjectively?
Can a subject be an object, or not?
Can an object be "only" an object, or is it always subjective (whatever it is)?

 

Yes

What is a subject according to you ?

What are you rambling about here ??


Btw. I really do not see how you could not have understood what I said in post 3.

 

We only know objects in a phenomenological realm. Meaning is not the only thing that is created by us, but also the object's qualities. In fact it is we who carve that object out from everything else. The notion that there are objects is our doing.

 

Of course dreaming is not totally subjective, dreams are influenced also by the environment. If it's too hot, cold, noisy, etc., it will affect your dreams.

If it's too hot you'll probably have nightmares.

 

You are right. Our perception of objects is completely subjective as well, though based on objective reality.
I believe that ultimately there is only form, nothing more.

 

Which are all interpretations by the brain, thus subjective.

 

Objects are things we "experience" as (we are) subjects.
Subjects are also objects.

Subjectivity is the experience of objects.
So subjectivity is like a mapping of objects to subjects (by the subjects)...?

Objectivity is a mapping that subjects make which "tries" to be "non-subjective"? That is, an attempt to "see" objects as objects, not as subjectively-experienced objects. But this is impossible, right?

Total objectivity would mean no subjects, only objects, a subject would need to be an object; this is what scientific observation is meant to mean: observation without interpretation (the observer tries to be only a "measuring object"). But at some point, meaning is required to give any object a subjective value or interpretation - we can't do without meaning.

 

Oh sure..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Form. You mean perceived outlines?

 

Then there would be no difference between dreaming and waking which would also include all 'interpretations' of the brain.

 

There is no such thing as "completely subjective" is there?

And as for "completely objective", that's actually impossible too.

If something is subjective, it's because the objects in it are subjective.
If something is objective, it's because the subjects in it are objective.

But someone seems to believe that one or the other can exist separately, which they can't.
Obviously.

 

In dreaming I am experiencing something. I am aware of it. Perhaps I 'should not confuse these 'things' with what I experience during the daytime'. Nevertheless the experience is real. As avatar said these experiences are affected by the environment. They are also affected by real experiences in the past and my have information about them not realized at the time. One can even make decisions based on dreams. Or have decisions made by them.

The form of benzene - note that form, Enmos – was discovered in a day dream.

 

No, that's not what I meant. Forget about it though, I was wrong.

 

In a sense that's correct. But perception is directly based on objective reality while dreams are not.

 

You seriously have no clue do you.. ?

 

Seriously?
I would seriously say, that you appear to be the one with that particular problem.
Can you show everyone an example of a "completely subjective", or "completely objective" anything?

I'd say not - not because you don't want to; because you can't. There are no such things.

 

Yes the experience is as real as awake perception but dreams are not based directly on objective reality. Instead they are mainly reproductions of awake perception and reinterpretations thereof. I say mainly because some 'real-time' input takes place as well (as avatar mentioned).

I think I was wrong about form, but I'm not sure.. it's why I say I believe only form exists.