Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dreams and Reality

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?
skuu
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:08:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry if this reply doesn't answer your question. I'm not sure if I understood what you asked exactly.

Are you saying that basically the main difference between a dream and reality (non dream) is stability? Or, at least, the main subjective difference?

Based on my very poor knowledge of psychology and dreams, I'd say that, as well as being pretty unstable as you said, dreams have many differences when compared to non-dream experience.

Be careful not to try to define something with labels that must be applied to 100% of cases. If we must differentiate dreams and non-dreams this way, we will indeed struggle, but when you widen your net and look at how dreams and non-dreams are usually or almost always different, you'll see that there's a lot of significant differences.

However, if you're simply looking for a strong and fast differentiation of the subjective experience, I think philosophy and perhaps psychology has shown that that may not exist.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:35:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:08:41 AM, skuu wrote:
Sorry if this reply doesn't answer your question. I'm not sure if I understood what you asked exactly.

Are you saying that basically the main difference between a dream and reality (non dream) is stability? Or, at least, the main subjective difference?

Based on my very poor knowledge of psychology and dreams, I'd say that, as well as being pretty unstable as you said, dreams have many differences when compared to non-dream experience.

Be careful not to try to define something with labels that must be applied to 100% of cases. If we must differentiate dreams and non-dreams this way, we will indeed struggle, but when you widen your net and look at how dreams and non-dreams are usually or almost always different, you'll see that there's a lot of significant differences.

What differences besides the powerfulness and stability? I don't really see them... Hell, sometimes I dream I have money and then check my wallet when I wake up lol The only real difference is that dreams are unstable, and seem less powerful but their essential nature is the same; experiences of things that we believe to be "real" at the time.

However, if you're simply looking for a strong and fast differentiation of the subjective experience, I think philosophy and perhaps psychology has shown that that may not exist.
skuu
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 2:53:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For example, we almost always know whether something was a dream or not. Sometimes we are fooled and think that a dream actually happened.

Again, if you're only interested in things that 100% of the time can identify whether something is a dream or not, I don't think such things exist.

This extends beyond dreams. It's theoretically possible that in the future we could plug brains into machines and simulate reality, just like we can already mess with people's perception of reality to some extent .

If your point is 'ultimately you can't be sure whether it's a dream or reality', then I agree. If your point is 'dreaming and reality are almost impossible/very difficult to differentiate, I disagree. For the reason I said above, and some others.

A further example would be analysis. Not only can we sort of remember and feel that a dream was a dream immediately after waking, but we have learnt the general elements that make up most dreams, and can identify them as such. 'I was falling', 'I saw my dead parent', 'I was naked in front of everyone', 'I was flying'. The normal brain is quite able to understand the usual make-up of dreams and some of the psychology behind them.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 4:45:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

I would say another property reality has over dreams, is reality is generally shared by a group of observers. where dreams only have you observing.

so in your dream is a mountain side with a slide, do other dreamers remember the slide or events that happened there? probably not.

shared lucid dreams would be crazy awesome.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:07:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 2:53:33 AM, skuu wrote:
For example, we almost always know whether something was a dream or not. Sometimes we are fooled and think that a dream actually happened.

This is false. We always think a dream is real when we are in it. Just like we think reality is real right now.


Again, if you're only interested in things that 100% of the time can identify whether something is a dream or not, I don't think such things exist.

This extends beyond dreams. It's theoretically possible that in the future we could plug brains into machines and simulate reality, just like we can already mess with people's perception of reality to some extent .

If your point is 'ultimately you can't be sure whether it's a dream or reality', then I agree. If your point is 'dreaming and reality are almost impossible/very difficult to differentiate, I disagree. For the reason I said above, and some others.

A further example would be analysis. Not only can we sort of remember and feel that a dream was a dream immediately after waking, but we have learnt the general elements that make up most dreams, and can identify them as such. 'I was falling', 'I saw my dead parent', 'I was naked in front of everyone', 'I was flying'. The normal brain is quite able to understand the usual make-up of dreams and some of the psychology behind them.

Again, we think dreams are real when we are in them. Just like we think this is real, as we are in it. Perhaps when we die, that is like "waking up" but another layer, if you will.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:11:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 4:45:06 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?


I would say another property reality has over dreams, is reality is generally shared by a group of observers. where dreams only have you observing.


so in your dream is a mountain side with a slide, do other dreamers remember the slide or events that happened there? probably not.

shared lucid dreams would be crazy awesome.

Sure that is a difference, but that doesn't mean the essential nature of dreams and what we call "reality" are different, that only deals with how many people experience it at one time, which is a contingent property. I mean, if only I listen to a song, and 100 people listen to another song, that doesn't change the fact that those two songs still have the same nature, they are still both musical .mp3 pieces. How many people share an experience doesn't really make that much of a difference with regards to the essential nature of dreams and reality.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:16:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

Unless the reason why awareness is stable is because our experiences are dependant on our sense perceptions... From physical reality :-p

It seems to be a reasonable assumption to make. If physical reality exists then there exists a reality independent of our sense perceptions, and therefore will not be subject to our will, our memory, and our intentions. Moreover it will be a reality that we will share with other conscious beings, and the inputs from that reality will contain things outside of our own memory and experience.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:22:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:16:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

Unless the reason why awareness is stable is because our experiences are dependant on our sense perceptions... From physical reality :-p

Or, the reason reality is more stable is because instead of just our individual subconsciousness producing these experiences, it is all of ours working together in unison. We also seems to have sense in dreams too, if I get punched in the face, or have sex in a dream, I feel it in the dream, even though there is no physical reality that corresponds to it.


It seems to be a reasonable assumption to make. If physical reality exists then there exists a reality independent of our sense perceptions, and therefore will not be subject to our will, our memory, and our intentions.

There is a reality beyond our sense perceptions, but it doesn't have to be physical, it could be all our subconscious's working together, which is conscious from its own reference frame (something God-like), producing these experiences we all share.

Moreover it will be a reality that we will share with other conscious beings, and the inputs from that reality will contain things outside of our own memory and experience.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:29:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:22:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:16:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

Unless the reason why awareness is stable is because our experiences are dependant on our sense perceptions... From physical reality :-p

Or, the reason reality is more stable is because instead of just our individual subconsciousness producing these experiences, it is all of ours working together in unison. We also seems to have sense in dreams too, if I get punched in the face, or have sex in a dream, I feel it in the dream, even though there is no physical reality that corresponds to it.

Seems to be ad hoc reasoning IMO. I mean the fact that we have linked consciousnesses doesn't seem to adequately or simply answer even basic questions, such as why do you retain injuries after sustaining them in reality, but not in dreams. Why would the linking of conciousness* make any difference in that regard?


It seems to be a reasonable assumption to make. If physical reality exists then there exists a reality independent of our sense perceptions, and therefore will not be subject to our will, our memory, and our intentions.

There is a reality beyond our sense perceptions, but it doesn't have to be physical, it could be all our subconscious's working together, which is conscious from its own reference frame (something God-like), producing these experiences we all share.

Seems to lack explanatory power for one. Assuming physical reality (philosophical atoms) solves these issues with minimal assumptions, whereas assuming a grand consciousness makes a rather large jump and does not cogently answer questions about the facts of reality.

Why does reality not dynamically change in ways that violate the laws of physics? Why do we not possess memories from outside our own experience? Why is conciousness corruptible at each and every level known? What is our own conciousness if physical reality is embedded within God?

It seems that what inevitably will happen is both idealistic and and physicalistic conclusions will reduce down to essentially the same explanations, except idealists need to make that extra assumption of God grounding physical reality in a way which matches physical reality.

Moreover it will be a reality that we will share with other conscious beings, and the inputs from that reality will contain things outside of our own memory and experience.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.


As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 6:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:29:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:22:27 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:16:29 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

Unless the reason why awareness is stable is because our experiences are dependant on our sense perceptions... From physical reality :-p

Or, the reason reality is more stable is because instead of just our individual subconsciousness producing these experiences, it is all of ours working together in unison. We also seems to have sense in dreams too, if I get punched in the face, or have sex in a dream, I feel it in the dream, even though there is no physical reality that corresponds to it.

Seems to be ad hoc reasoning IMO.

Not at all. We already have examples of experiencing physical things without anything physical corresponding to it (dreams), it isn't that much of a stretch to assume reality is just a more powerful and stable dream, it certainly seems that way to me. I ate a sandwich in my dream, and I thought it was real in the dream, I am eating a sandwich now and think it is real... Not seeing to many essential differences here.

I mean the fact that we have linked consciousnesses doesn't seem to adequately or simply answer even basic questions, such as why do you retain injuries after sustaining them in reality, but not in dreams.

The stability difference answers that. You could have a broken leg one moment, but no broken moment the next, due to the fact that dreams are unstable.

Why would the linking of conciousness* make any difference in that regard?

Because it could provide more stability. What is going to hold up a book better, one nail, or a bed of nails? Similarly, more subconsciouses could "hold up" a consistent reality better, than just the subconscious working to produce your dreams.



It seems to be a reasonable assumption to make. If physical reality exists then there exists a reality independent of our sense perceptions, and therefore will not be subject to our will, our memory, and our intentions.

There is a reality beyond our sense perceptions, but it doesn't have to be physical, it could be all our subconscious's working together, which is conscious from its own reference frame (something God-like), producing these experiences we all share.

Seems to lack explanatory power for one.

Seems explanatory superior to me! You are positing a physical reality when there is no good reason to. It is an extra assumption.

Assuming physical reality (philosophical atoms) solves these issues with minimal assumptions, whereas assuming a grand consciousness makes a rather large jump and does not cogently answer questions about the facts of reality.

Why not? The grand consciousness answers all the questions just fine.


Why does reality not dynamically change in ways that violate the laws of physics?

Stability. We have been through this...

Why do we not possess memories from outside our own experience?

Even if all our subconsciouses are unified in a particular way, we would still have our individuality.

Why is conciousness corruptible at each and every level known?

Consciouness = integrated information. The networking is corruptible, but not consciousness itself.

What is our own conciousness if physical reality is embedded within God?

There is no physical reality in my worldview. Everything is conscious/ mental. It is like in a dream, you experience a body outside yourself (you can can see your penis go in and out if you dream of having sex), but it is all in your mind. I think reality is the same, just more consistent and stable. It is all in our heads, and this reality is being "fueled" by a grand mind.


It seems that what inevitably will happen is both idealistic and and physicalistic conclusions will reduce down to essentially the same explanations, except idealists need to make that extra assumption of God grounding physical reality in a way which matches physical reality.

YOU make the extra assumptions. I assume the mental exists... that's it. You assume the mental exists AND the physical. See? YOU make the extra assumptions. My worldview makes less assumptions. You have to posit something there is 0 evidence for (the physical). We only have evidence of our own experiences. Just because you experience a computer monitor, doesn't mean one physically exists. That is only evidence of an experience, which is mental; not physical.


Moreover it will be a reality that we will share with other conscious beings, and the inputs from that reality will contain things outside of our own memory and experience.

Yes, our un
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:10:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

There were some errors in my last post, here is the correct version:

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we call "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and less powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconsciousness. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness in unison are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God. It is conscious, and logically prior to our minds, and produces the reality we all share.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:34:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.

Saying you were having sex with a Spanish woman only to realize she was black, or you were outside, even though you thought you were in bed, are not contradictions?



As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"

How does something seeming or feeling real contradict abstraction?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:25:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:34:06 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.

Saying you were having sex with a Spanish woman only to realize she was black, or you were outside, even though you thought you were in bed, are not contradictions?

No, they are changes. I'm having sex with a spanish women, then I look up, and its a black woman now. That's a random change, not a contradiction.




As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"

How does something seeming or feeling real contradict abstraction?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify? And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence? Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious? And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.
Nolite Timere
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 4:42:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify? And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence? Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious? And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.

I'll see if I can explain it better... When you dream, that is your subconscious creating realities and scenarios for you that you think are physically real while you are in the dream, right? For example, if you are going down a waters slide on a huge mountain in your dream, there really isn't an actual physical mountain with a slide that correlates with that, it is just an experience created by your subconscious. What if what we call "reality" is the same thing as a dream, just more powerful, and stable, and shared by all of us? The best explanation for this would be that all of our subsconsiousness are working together to create this reality, but when we dream, it is only our individual subconscious at work (which is why I can't experience your dreams).

The reason I like this idea is due to explanatory power. Instead of positing an actual physical world on top of our mental lives, we can just assume that only mental life exists. It is simple, and avoids the interaction problem (how can something completely physical, interact with something non-physical and without physical properties?). It is not ad hoc, because we already have examples of realities that seem physically real but are just in our minds (dreams).

I think assuming anything physical actually exists is a naive assumption.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 4:42:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify? And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence? Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious? And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.

I'll see if I can explain it better... When you dream, that is your subconscious creating realities and scenarios for you that you think are physically real while you are in the dream, right? For example, if you are going down a waters slide on a huge mountain in your dream, there really isn't an actual physical mountain with a slide that correlates with that, it is just an experience created by your subconscious. What if what we call "reality" is the same thing as a dream, just more powerful, and stable, and shared by all of us? The best explanation for this would be that all of our subsconsiousness are working together to create this reality, but when we dream, it is only our individual subconscious at work (which is why I can't experience your dreams).

The reason I like this idea is due to explanatory power. Instead of positing an actual physical world on top of our mental lives, we can just assume that only mental life exists. It is simple, and avoids the interaction problem (how can something completely physical, interact with something non-physical and without physical properties?). It is not ad hoc, because we already have examples of realities that seem physically real but are just in our minds (dreams).

I think assuming anything physical actually exists is a naive assumption.

I understand what you are saying, but none of this really answered my question related to it.
Nolite Timere
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:11:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 1:25:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:34:06 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.

Saying you were having sex with a Spanish woman only to realize she was black, or you were outside, even though you thought you were in bed, are not contradictions?

No, they are changes. I'm having sex with a spanish women, then I look up, and its a black woman now. That's a random change, not a contradiction.

Change is contradiction; it's not agreement. The statement, "That which is is that which isn't is a contradiction. You can make that statement, about any variable.





As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"

How does something seeming or feeling real contradict abstraction?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:51:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 12:11:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:25:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:34:06 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.

Saying you were having sex with a Spanish woman only to realize she was black, or you were outside, even though you thought you were in bed, are not contradictions?

No, they are changes. I'm having sex with a spanish women, then I look up, and its a black woman now. That's a random change, not a contradiction.

Change is contradiction; it's not agreement. The statement, "That which is is that which isn't is a contradiction. You can make that statement, about any variable.





As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"

How does something seeming or feeling real contradict abstraction?

How is change contradiction? If my hand is down, then I raise it in class, that is not a contradiction...Similarly, if I dream of having sex with a spanish girl, then she changes into a black girl, that isn't a contradiction.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 2:27:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify?

I don't know... But there a lot of unanswered questions if you assume a physical world as well with regards to "how". That doesn't make it less plausible, does it?

And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence?

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by justifying existence?

Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious?

God = our unified sunconsciousness (it is a grand subconscious to us, but conscious with respect to its reference frame). God would create whatever he wants, with whatever bodies he wants. God is responsible for the reality we see.

And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

Yes, but there is good reason to think that subconsciousness = conscious with respect to its own reference frame (just to ours). This is because subconsciousness would still be an integrated information system, and according to Integrated Information Theory; that is consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.

Hopefully that answers your questions better, if not, ask away again! I simply take the view that there is no physical reality. It isn't far-fetched when you take dreams into account, because they prove that we can have experiences of a physical reality that don't actually correspond to that scenario as a physically existing state of affairs. I just take reality to be JUST LIKE a dream, even a priori once you think about it, accept it is shared and much more stable and what not. But the essential properties are still the same; experiences of what seems to be "physical" reality, but that doesn't really correspond to an actually physical state of affairs.
9spaceking
Posts: 4,213
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:11:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
yeahh....sometimes in dreams I even "spot" the errors like--too much factories randomly floating in the sky, or "that's not right..." or something like that
Equestrian election
http://www.debate.org...

This House would impose democracy
http://www.debate.org...

Reign of Terror is unjustified
http://www.debate.org...

Raise min. wage to $10.10
http://www.debate.org...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 8:36:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:51:26 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:11:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 7/1/2014 1:25:04 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 7:34:06 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/30/2014 6:15:47 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 12:11:24 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

The world is filled, with contradiction and meaning. That is the reason dreams are so full of contradiction, they are an attempt, at making sense of our world.

There is no contradictions in dreams,but instability, which I already granted.

Saying you were having sex with a Spanish woman only to realize she was black, or you were outside, even though you thought you were in bed, are not contradictions?

No, they are changes. I'm having sex with a spanish women, then I look up, and its a black woman now. That's a random change, not a contradiction.

Change is contradiction; it's not agreement. The statement, "That which is is that which isn't is a contradiction. You can make that statement, about any variable.





As we look out into the world, we see division, yet the world is one. As the distractions of a conflicted world our hushed by sleep, we are forced to see the inner-world of abstractions. It is for the critic to interpret his, or her, own abstraction.

All I know is that dreams seem physically real when we are in them. When I run away from people in dreams, I feel actually scared in that dream. To quote Leo from inception:

"Dreams, they feel real when we are in them, right? It is only when we wake up that we realize something was actually strange"

How does something seeming or feeling real contradict abstraction?

How is change contradiction? If my hand is down, then I raise it in class, that is not a contradiction...Similarly, if I dream of having sex with a spanish girl, then she changes into a black girl, that isn't a contradiction.

To contradict is to be in opposition. Action is opposed to inaction; raising your hand is in opposition, to putting it down. Change cannot occur, without opposition; and, opposition cannot occur, without contradiction. Contradicting opposites have set the world in motion.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:57:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 2:27:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify?

I don't know... But there a lot of unanswered questions if you assume a physical world as well with regards to "how". That doesn't make it less plausible, does it?

I suppose not, but if we do have a "how" then it makes it easier to believe.

And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence?

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by justifying existence?

I meant why do we all create physical images of each subconscious? Human beings are only a physical representation of the subconscious aren't they?

Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious?

God = our unified sunconsciousness (it is a grand subconscious to us, but conscious with respect to its reference frame). God ws he wants. God is responsible for the reaould create whatever he wants, with whatever bodielity we see.

So God isn't a separate entity, he is only the combination of every subconscious? If so, then are you saying that the physical world we see is just what all of our subconsciouses together came up with?

And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

Yes, but there is good reason to think that subconsciousness = conscious with respect to its own reference frame (just to ours). This is because subconsciousness would still be an integrated information system, and according to Integrated Information Theory; that is consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.

Hopefully that answers your questions better, if not, ask away again! I simply take the view that there is no physical reality. It isn't far-fetched when you take dreams into account, because they prove that we can have experiences of a physical reality that don't actually correspond to that scenario as a physically existing state of affairs. I just take reality to be JUST LIKE a dream, even a priori once you think about it, accept it is shared and much more stable and what not. But the essential properties are still the same; experiences of what seems to be "physical" reality, but that doesn't really correspond to an actually physical state of affairs.

How do our subconsciouses come into existence? Obviously every time a human is born into the world, a new subconscious comes into existence. Do you have any ideas on how new subconsciouses come about?
Nolite Timere
question4u
Posts: 492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:17:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

What if a person dreams of spirits chasing him/her. Then that person wakes up and there is spirit and front of them. Now their reality has now become unstable and the system is now ready to lock them up from being mentally unstable. Our mind is not limited to anything. However, the things that we want are. "So be careful for what you want and be thankful for what you have"
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 8:30:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 12:57:42 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/2/2014 2:27:25 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/1/2014 2:05:52 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:07:52 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 7:56:14 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 6/28/2014 1:35:05 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I was just thinking that the only real difference between dreams and what we call "reality" is stability. I mean, in a dream you could have having sex with a spanish woman, look down, then look up and it is a black woman. A second later, you might be outside instead of in a bed and it is extremely unstable. You will find weird scenarios, and things are all over the place. But essentially, I don't see any difference in the nature of dreams when compared to the nature of "reality", the only difference is the stability of the experiences. However, if dreams and "reality" share those same essential properties, and experiences in dreams don't correlate with an actual physical reality (the mountain in my dream last night with the waterslide doesn't physically exist, at least for all I know), then isn't it probably the case that what we experience right now doesn't correlate with a physical reality either if the the only difference between the two is stability (which is a contingent property)?

So you're saying that ultimately reality is just like a dream, except it's produced by the mind of a higher being, correct? In other words, we're in a dream world which is produced by another mind, not by our own subconsciousness.

I'm saying that our all of oursubconsciousness in unison produces what we call "reality", and our individual subconsciousness produces what we all "dreams", but they both share the essential properties. The only difference is that dreams are less stable and powerful, which is to be expected from only one subconscious. If you have a book, a bed of nails will hold it up better than one nail, similarly, subconsciousness in unison produces more of a powerful and stable experience than one subconsciousness. But, our subconsciousness are logically prior to our consciousness, and unified, it is conscious with respect to its own reference frame! Sounds pretty God-like to me. Our unified subconsciousness, which is conscious with respect to our own reference frame, may very well be what people refer to as God.

How exactly do all of our subconscious's unify?

I don't know... But there a lot of unanswered questions if you assume a physical world as well with regards to "how". That doesn't make it less plausible, does it?

I suppose not, but if we do have a "how" then it makes it easier to believe.

It could, but not necessarily. Also, it isn't a science where we need some mechanism to account for something, the subconsciousness could be unified due to their inherent nature.


And if physical reality doesn't exist then why do subconscious' (other humans I assume) justify eachother's existence?

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by justifying existence?

I meant why do we all create physical images of each subconscious? Human beings are only a physical representation of the subconscious aren't they?

Physical bodies are creations of the unified subconscious system (which is conscious with respect to its own reference frame). "God", if you will.


Do we mentally create human beings, which are just a representation of a subconscious?

God = our unified sunconsciousness (it is a grand subconscious to us, but conscious with respect to its reference frame). God ws he wants. God is responsible for the reaould create whatever he wants, with whatever bodielity we see.

So God isn't a separate entity, he is only the combination of every subconscious? If so, then are you saying that the physical world we see is just what all of our subconsciouses together came up with?

Yes.


And what about our conscious self? Isn't that different from our subconscious?

Yes, but there is good reason to think that subconsciousness = conscious with respect to its own reference frame (just to ours). This is because subconsciousness would still be an integrated information system, and according to Integrated Information Theory; that is consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

I'd just like to get a better understanding of what you are speaking about.

Hopefully that answers your questions better, if not, ask away again! I simply take the view that there is no physical reality. It isn't far-fetched when you take dreams into account, because they prove that we can have experiences of a physical reality that don't actually correspond to that scenario as a physically existing state of affairs. I just take reality to be JUST LIKE a dream, even a priori once you think about it, accept it is shared and much more stable and what not. But the essential properties are still the same; experiences of what seems to be "physical" reality, but that doesn't really correspond to an actually physical state of affairs.

How do our subconsciouses come into existence? Obviously every time a human is born into the world, a new subconscious comes into existence. Do you have any ideas on how new subconsciouses come about?

I don't think subconsciousness come into existence, I would say the unified subconscious system sort of "rations out" aspects of itself, if you will, as conscious beings are "born". I hold to a timeless ontology anyway, so ontologically speaking, human beings are really born in a process.