Dreaming is not 'completely subjective'

What is this rubbish?
Dreams and mental processes are objective, not subjective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You really must learn the difference between someone who cannot answer a question and someone who will not because it would be a total waste of time.

I'm sure there must be others who need your pearls of wisdom. so I won't trake up any more of your time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like you just thought you would do with this last duck & cover...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think that dreams are a function of the brain shuffling experience from short term to long term memory. It's the process of integration that activates all kinds of imagery, weird and ordinary from the conceptual inter-relationships that already exist in the mind.

I do think they are completely subjective, as they consist entirely of the shuffling around of subjective experience. While as you say it's easy to point to 'real world' objects as represented in the content of dreams, these are not the objects in question. The dream entirely consists of subjective experience (which will at least vary in perspective from that of other dreamers) and is as such, entirely subjective.

 

So is learning.

And new ones.

That are influenced by what the person has experienced of the world. Also your assertion does not fit with people who have, during dreams, solved problems and come up with practical solutions. (see earlier posts in the thread for examples.

Probably all of our perceptions vary from other perceivers. If you want to say that all experience including dreams is subjective that is one thing. I think there are problems with this assertion, but it makes more sense to me. If you want to distinguish dreams from the rest I think your foundation is weak. There are rather dramatic examples of dreams that have had clear and new insight into the world and were used both to explain and interact with the world in new ways. These could be used by more than the dreamers. Such dramatic dreams probably are the tip of the iceberg of dreams with more mundane but accurate information not simply about the internal life of the dreamer.

 

Sure I think dreaming is a weird form of learning maybe. Sort of, hard to explain but I'll probably get around to it.

Sure, each moment is new but reflective in some respect of the preceding moment(s). I find it interesting though, how time is in my own dreams. It's just not there for me. It's weird.

Of course, but again it's not the world we're discussing, it's a unique reflection of it dancing around in someone's head.

Why doesn't that work with it? I don't see any reason that what I said precludes this.

Ha. I thought you knew my bs well enough to know that's exactly what I'd say.

Dreams were separated by the subject established in the OP. That's all.

Again I don't see what this has to do with any kind of contradiction of something I've said.

Every idea is subjectively cultivated and put back into the fray of others cultivating even something quite similar, no?

What it's "about" is somewhat irrelevant to me. The fact is, it's their own perspective, their own mind performing its function of sorting (which can result in solved problems and new perspective).

 

Well, then I don't know what subjective means. If subjective can mean it is useful for practical purposes in consensual reality - redundancies intended - OK, I guess, but I am not sure why we should mention dreaming in particular though.

OK. Then it's OK. But hardly worth saying. All mental activities are subjective. Or even better all experiencing is completely subjective. Once on activity is sectioned out it is misleading.

OK. Point of info: the OP came from another thread where dreams were being singled out and you can see through this thread, not that I in any ways recommend reading through - the roles were all fairly predictable, at least by 'regulars' - that some people see dreams as more subjective than other mental activities.

 

Maybe it's me, but dictionary.com says "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).", which is basically what i thought it to mean. I'd agree they are based in the objective, but I think "an instance of perspective on reality[/i] is a good way to think of it.

Oh well from the OP I thought you mentioned it because you don't think they are subjective. Are they not a completely mental activity?

Dreams are a mental activity, all mental activities are subjective. That's what one might mean by saying dreams are subjective.

Yeah I suppose I missed something there.

 

'on reality'?? is it touching it?

Nah, another region of interaction where me and others mix. (I'm feeling feisty today) They are certainly not just inner.

But there would of course be no point in saying it, if one has your beliefs.

 

Sure, but you brought it up! I just thought I'd argue against you to see where it went... perhaps interesting stuff would come up.

 

Yeah, that's true. I mean I didn't, but for you I did, so I am being silly saying that over and over. Sorry.

 

Well as I see it, it's an instance of it. So "touching" is somewhat correct, but I guess the border of the subjective and objective seems to be captured in the brain somewhere. So maybe "touching" is correct. Not sure.

So in what medium does this interaction exist? If it is of your mind (and yours alone) how do others interact with it when you're dreaming? I suppose someone could tickle your feet or something and you'd dream that, but that doesn't seem like what you mean. In a typical dream when no one is messing with you physically, how do you interact with others?

Do you mean the dream or its aftermath when you say "not just inner"?

 

Meh, no biggie. But yeah it did seem like you brought it up. I was checking threads you'd started in hopes of interesting conversation and this seemed potentially so.

 

Oh, now I'm flattered. In fact I thought I noticed a pattern (connection between paranoia and intelligence again) but humility did not allow a conscious thought to linger.

I threw a gauntlet down above saying that dreams are not internal. Let me say what I think has happened. We are indoctrinated in the belief that the models we created for ourselves and our minds involve us being 'inside our heads'. We then imagine without even noticing it that in the real, objective world, light, for example, travels through space and 'enter us'. We don't see that light. We actually watch a simulation, somewhere else, deeper inside us, that is distorted by the selectiveness and distortions of our sense organs and brain priorties and limitations and so on. So we used this seeming contact or intermeshing with what is outside us to let us know that we really are not in direct contact with what is outside us. We then, trained in this model, can make statements about all mental activities being subjective.

I am shifting this word subjective to internal and inner.

I think
1) this model presents issues of infinite regress. from what vantage do we watch these simulations and is that not another step remove, etc. If it is not, then why must the first be.

2) I think this is a specific cultural model that is useful but limited.
I do not think the inner and outer are immaculate separate regions. Knowing you a little I think you would kinda agree since, if I may be so bold, you think EVERYTHING IS REALLY INNER and anything we might say about OUTER is really wild speculation about something our language has little to do with. So we sort of agree. But I don't think we do - nor do I think you do, even if you allow the liberties - likely confusions - I have taken about your ideas.

I think when we see things they are also inside us. Not the simulations the things themselves. I think in dreams we are sometimes in the direct presence of those we dream of.

Science posits distance as primary. (and we have gotten so used to this assumption it affects our experience, unconsciously)
I posit intimacy as primary.

I do think that training can eliminate awareness of intimacy.

(as you mentally test my 'theory' notice what your mind does, how it checks, what images you look at. Consider that these methods and the images are based on a model that seems inevitable, but is really a cultural artifact. The same goes for if you 'check' seeing itself. Even the way we process this and analyze it, it is already in a contorted state. It is conceived in a certain way, seeing is.)

 

Oh well I don't know how flattered you should be that I find you to be interesting and thoughtful. Could be I'm a complete moran, or satan himself for that matter. Lol. Like I'd know. Maybe I'm Jesus. More likely, just some guy Wes with head full of rambling diatribe.

Seems to follow is all. Knowing that if we physically damage the brain (or body), we can take away or severely alter the person. Well that and that my eyes show me one perspective and when I move my head that perspective seems to change with it. When I walk into a new area he smells often change accordingly, etc. They only seem to change in a very similar way for others if they're doing the exact same thing I am, and even then it's just mostly, sometimes seeming almost exact. It seems logically consequential to the notion of self, but of course the indoctrinated alway have the hardest time seeing their indoctrination.

Gah, I hate to be incredibly picky here, but it seems necessary. I think this view is not quite accurate, but is often taken as for simplification or lack of further consideration. The difference is subtle, but important I think: Image your mind liken to a big chunk of glass through which I now shine a flashlight. The light in the glass is distorted due to the makeup of the glass... the happenstance of molecular goodness that was realized as the glass formed. I think it's more like, you "are" the glass if you follow.

In a mind, it would seem from medical observations though, that the light is translated, induced into bio-electrical impulses that feed information to the ego function. But this is rather similar to any form of encoding, in which the output is necessarily a function of the input. They're bound. Of course none of this touches on pattern recognition, etc. As the light, unobserved - is flatly meaningless. It seems you're begging the question of the mystery of the observer.

And please pardon me, but I'm just trying to communicate my own view of the model you seem to be criticizing, as to me it seems apt, but prone to misunderstandings as it can get rather complicated.

Anyway, that's the thing. To me, separating something as "subjective" merely accounts for personal distortions, but does not sever one from the overall system. In fact IMO, it makes one accountable for their connection to it - at least as much as their mind can bear. Their connection to that which is not their ego, the way they feel toward it, they way they react to it, the way the manipulate it - all directly impacts ego in some way that fits, back to the block of glass example, into their particular distribution of molecules - if you will. Of course a block of glass would be much more static and non-reactive to the ever changing lights - whereas mind grows to tune itself to the survival task as it learns it to be.

But how do you shift a word to it's intended definition?

Simulations is the wrong word. It's more like 'encoded information', or 'imparted perception' or something like that. The vantage point is an interesting question though, and for simplification and brevity at the moment, I'd call it "ego", which is of course - an abstract. To me this hints quite strongly that abstracts are part of reality - if you see how this seems to weave into what you're saying (it doesn't 'separate' mind from reality, exactly - just an aspect of it).

This is where it gets tricky. You're sort of right about my interpretation but I think you miss why I do it. Honestly, I feel limited by epistemology here. It's not that I believe everything is really inner exactly, but that 'the inner' is all that can be spoken of with authority. As such my entire perspective on related matters is limited to this. It's rather tiring to explain exactly why, and I've done it to some extent where you were around before I think, so I'm not sure I need to go on. It's basically that I think it's fundamentally the wrongest of wrongs for me to insist what you see - even though I may disagree strongly with it and have to kill you or die over it. Not that we can't discuss it, just that I have no right epistemelogically to insist it.

Hopefully the above either clarifies it to some extent or ignites more debate on the subject.

See that doesn't work for me because "direct presence" implies a physical "I'm right here physically I'd swear", whereas it seems to me you don't exactly mean that. To imply a potential similarity in perspective through a possibly confusing analogy however: You know that math thing where two points in three dimensions can be the same in a fourth, or maybe backwards? To me, something akin to that seems possible in the abstract landscape.

Scientifically? Hehe. I posit self as primary. I wonder how similar that is to what you mean. Without self, distance is meaningless - lacking ego to give it value.

I'm a weird guy man, always have been. I can't however in any honest way - objectively determine my cultural artifacts, as I have bastardized the shit out of everything in my head, as I'm a selfish bastard that way. I would guess however, that I started with many cultural artifacts and mentally raped them to fit my thinking and observations.