Atheist Realism?

[ronan]

LG,

I almost agree. But you do not have a sense of awareness in a dreaming state but dreams can impinge on memory that you can recall when you wake and are conscious.

Agreed, but one which I think is entirely irrelevant. Or in other words, why care what happens when you are unconscious? The essential point is that when awake we can tell the difference between dreaming and being awake. I think Ronan is trying to argue that he cannot tell whether he is awake or dreaming.

More precisely, you cannot know that when you believe you are awake you are in fact dreaming or not.
You only realize that when you realize it (self evident)

Dreams appear real, it is only when you realize that they are not real that you call them dream, not before!
Similarly, you may be in a dream but because it appears real you believe it is real but MAYBE it is in fact a dream. You will MAYBE realize it later. YOU CANNOT KNOW.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

I believe you never had dream.

Don’t be silly, everyone dreams. We’d be dead otherwise.

Dreaming and sleep are essential to healthy brain function. The best I could discover on the purpose of sleep and dreams comes from research out of Oxford University. They published a book on how the brain functions and I’m not sure if there is a web reference. There they were able to make correlations between levels of protein before and after sleep and dreaming. The focus of study rested on the replenishment of protein in the synapses. These are the connections between neurons and are not electrical. During normal waking hours brain activity consumes the protein in the synapses, this is how the synapses operate. Think of the protein as fuel. During sleep the protein levels are refreshed (re-fueled). If one did not sleep then your brain would eventually consume all the protein in the synapses and the brain would cease to function and you would die.

Dreaming is a large part of sleep and most people do not remember any of their dreams and those who do only remember the last fragment as they wake or are woken abruptly. If you are regularly woken by an alarm clock then you are likely to remember more of your dreams. Dreams occur because the synapses are being altered. These changes initiate random firings of neurons that trigger thoughts in the brain. The randomness is what gives the disorganized aspect to dreams. Note that most dreams revolve around recent activates which makes sense since it would be those neurons/synapses that would need the most refueling.

Note also that the synapses are the primary target for most hallucinogenic drugs. These essentially alter the proteins in the synapses to cause unusual neuron firings which in turn create dreamlike effects.

While dreaming we are conscious, that's why we experience them, of course sometime we forgot them like many other things in life.

A pure guess, and totally wrong. The essential nature of dreaming is that you are totally unconscious to allow that essential brain maintenance to occur. When you are conscious you begin to consume the synapses again.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

While you cannot imagine a dream that is consistent , non contradictory and persistent (until you wake up or realize that it is?) maybe it is possible.
You have to prove that it is not possible (you cannot use the fact that every night it never happen because you are not eternal and maybe the dream that is consistent,etc. is the one you are experiencing when you believe you are awake)

That's an easy one. The human brain lacks the processing power to simulate reality without error.

If you experienced dreams that for 1 second you believed it was real
why cannot you imagine that there is dream that take 1 life to realize that it was a dream?

I can imagine the grim reaper trying to lather his purple apocolyptic pony with felt sausage puppies; however, imagination has no correspondence to objective possibility. In other words, your idea is not difficult to imagine... it's simply a false idea.

but only until you find such behavior (An if you did not find it does not mean that there is not) so your argument is not valid

If such a behavior showed up then reality would break and seeing as it's operating smoothly that means such a behavior does not exist.

But it is only after you REALIZE that it was a hallucination that you KNOW that it was an hallucination (self evident)

You can realize something is hallucinatory during the event instead of after. Take hypnopompia for example. It has alot of recognizeable tell-tale signs that lead me to recognize it at its inception almost 100% of the time.

Do not talk about something you cannot know because as I said you are maybe in a dream

until you realize (same as in dream) but you did not realize

I know I am not dreaming at this moment. Maybe your ability to detect difference hasn't matured yet; hence, you would not be able to make the same distinction.

Which specific notion?
And tell me why it is false if it is so evident for you, that should not take long

The notion that reality has a possibility of being a dream... and you're right it wont take long.

* The concept of dreaming is only avaiable because many life forms on Earth dream and we can recognize it. In other words there is a real biological phenomena that correponds to the concept.
* Humans have the ability to distinguish between dreaming states and non dreaming states.
* All dreams are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory and those qualities can be recognized from within a dream. Reality is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory and those qualities can be recognized within reality.
* All dreams are hallucinatory simualtions that enhance human survival.
* You cannot affect your consciousness in a dream. You can in reality.
* You cannot permanently cut of your arm in a dream. You can in reality.
* You cannot read text accurately in a dream. You can in reality.
* You can modify your environment by force of will in a dream. You cannot in reality.
* Reality is agnostic and unaffected by your thoughts and feelings. Dreams are not.
* You cannot learn a new subject matter in dreams. You can in reality.

As you can see, the distinction between dreams and reality is quite immense. For reality to be a dream it would have to share the same properties of a dream which it doesn't; hence, the notion is demonstrably false. For reality to otherwise be a non-dream simulation would require more energy than can be contained; hence, the notion is demonstrably false.

Note about your pseudo argument against the fact that you are maybe dreaming:
Don't you realize that all your argument are based on the content of what I qualify to be maybe a dream?
These argument cannot be valid if you are dreaming
indeed if you are in fact dreaming your argument are not valid, while if you are right it is not a proof because you could have been dreaming. you need a external argument.

See above.

In other words: you assume that you are not dreaming and then from that you conclude that you are not dreaming.

It is not enough, it is a circular argument

Incorrect. I can distinguish between a dream and waking consciousness and note that they are not equal; hence, to call reality a dream is to impose artificial equality which really isn't there.

While me, I only said that you cannot know that you are dreaming or not.
I don't say you arr not dreaming neither I say that you are dreaming.
The proof have to be given by you but if you think enough you will see that it is not possible to prove that because all your evidence reside in your experiences (which can be dream or not)

Is there nobody here in this forum that know about the dreaming problem ?
I am quite surprise of hearing Crunchy Cat talking as he knew that he was not dreaming while all his argument are based on the content of his dream (or not) (what he experiences: brain, humans...).

It's not a problem. The concept of a dream arises because you dream. The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality; hence, reality is not a dream. That's the simplest the falsification can get.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

A pure guess, and totally wrong. The essential nature of dreaming is that you are totally unconscious to allow that essential brain maintenance to occur. When you are conscious you begin to consume the synapses again.

Cris,

He's correct on that point. You are conscious and consuming synapses when you dream. It is however greatly reduced compared to waking consciousness. Dreams also serve a survival purpose by allowing you to perform in a simulated environment. Consider nightmares of being chased by a monster. The threat simulation may train you to improve your evasion skills and if you encounter a real threat in reality then those skills might be useful for your survival.

 

[Cris]

Ronan,

More precisely, you cannot know that when you believe you are awake you are in fact dreaming or not.

So you are saying you don’t know if you are awake or are dreaming, is that right?

There should be something about your answer that tells you none of this has the slightest ring of truth to it.

 

[Gustav]

When you are conscious you begin to consume the synapses again.

pardon but surely you mean consume the canapes?

 

[ronan]

Crunchy Cat, do you think before writing?
Do you read carefully what I am writing ?

That's an easy one. The human brain lacks the processing power to simulate reality without error.

Again same mistake, you evidence is inside your experiences, so if your experiences are dream (which is at issue) then your evidence is not valid!

Please understand that because you make the same mistake everytime.

If such a behavior showed up then reality would break and seeing as it's operating smoothly that means such a behavior does not exist.

It is not because you don't see that reality break that it will never happen!

You can realize something is hallucinatory during the event instead of after. Take hypnopompia for example. It has alot of recognizeable tell-tale signs that lead me to recognize it at its inception almost 100% of the time.

You did not understand what I was saying, read carefully , it is self-evident
"it is only after you REALIZE that it was a hallucination that you KNOW that it was an hallucination" (being during or after hallucination)

I know I am not dreaming that this moment. Maybe your ability to detect difference hasn't matured yet; hence, you would not be able to make the same distinction.
operating smoothly that means such a behavior does not exist.

It is not that you know, you believe that you are not dreaming.
Maybe as roxypoxy said, you are dreaming that you are not dreaming
You have to prove without evidence coming from your experience (because the validity of your experience are at the issue (namely they are maybe only dreams)) But it is not possible to use something outside your experience, so you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not!

READ CAREFULLY PLEASE!

The notion that reality has a possibility of being a dream... and you're right it wont take long.

* The concept of dreaming is only avaiable because many life forms on Earth dream and we can recognize it. In other words there is a real biological phenomena that correponds to the concept.
* Humans have the ability to distinguish between dreaming states and non dreaming states.
* All dreams are inconsistent, non-persistent, and contradictory and those qualities can be recognized from within a dream. Reality is consistent, persistent, and non-contradictory and those qualities can be recognized within reality.
* All dreams are hallucinatory simualtions that enhance human survival.
* You cannot affect your consciousness in a dream. You can in reality.
* You cannot permanently cut of your arm in a dream. You can in reality.
* You cannot read text accurately in a dream. You can in reality.
* You can modify your environment by force of will in a dream. You cannot in reality.
* Reality is agnostic and unaffected by your thoughts and feelings. Dreams are not.
* You cannot learn a new subject matter in dreams. You can in reality.

As you can see, the distinction between dreams and reality is quite immense. For reality to be a dream it would have to share the same properties of a dream which it doesn't; hence, the notion is demonstrably false. For reality to otherwise be a non-dream simulation would require more energy than can be contained; hence, the notion is demonstrably false.
operating smoothly that means such a behavior does not exist.

It is again based on your experience which can maybe a dream! and lot of them are even false but I don't have time to answer them because anyway it does not affect the argument that these evidences are maybe part of your dream!

See above.

Don't you understand the argument?

Please see above

Incorrect. I can distinguish between a dream and waking consciousness and not that they are not equal; hence, to call reality a dream is to impose artificial equality which really isn't there.

That is the point at issue whether finally what you believe to be not a dream is a dream. It is not by just saying it is not that you will save the problem, you have to prove it but you cannot!

It's not a problem. The concept of a dream arises because you dream. The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality; hence, reality is not a dream. That's the simplest the falsification can get.

It is a circular argument as I told you:

you say: The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality; THAT IS THE POINT AT ISSUE
hence, reality is not a dream.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

So you are saying you don’t know if you are awake or are dreaming, is that right?

There should be something about your answer that tells you none of this has the slightest ring of truth to it.

why?
please give arguments.

 

[ronan]

Ronan,

Don’t be silly, everyone dreams. We’d be dead otherwise.

Dreaming and sleep are essential to healthy brain function. The best I could discover on the purpose of sleep and dreams comes from research out of Oxford University. They published a book on how the brain functions and I’m not sure if there is a web reference. There they were able to make correlations between levels of protein before and after sleep and dreaming. The focus of study rested on the replenishment of protein in the synapses. These are the connections between neurons and are not electrical. During normal waking hours brain activity consumes the protein in the synapses, this is how the synapses operate. Think of the protein as fuel. During sleep the protein levels are refreshed (re-fueled). If one did not sleep then your brain would eventually consume all the protein in the synapses and the brain would cease to function and you would die.

Dreaming is a large part of sleep and most people do not remember any of their dreams and those who do only remember the last fragment as they wake or are woken abruptly. If you are regularly woken by an alarm clock then you are likely to remember more of your dreams. Dreams occur because the synapses are being altered. These changes initiate random firings of neurons that trigger thoughts in the brain. The randomness is what gives the disorganized aspect to dreams. Note that most dreams revolve around recent activates which makes sense since it would be those neurons/synapses that would need the most refueling.

Note also that the synapses are the primary target for most hallucinogenic drugs. These essentially alter the proteins in the synapses to cause unusual neuron firings which in turn create dreamlike effects.

A pure guess, and totally wrong. The essential nature of dreaming is that you are totally unconscious to allow that essential brain maintenance to occur. When you are conscious you begin to consume the synapses again.

come on!
why do you keep using evidences from your experience while you know that there are at issue here!

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat, do you think before writing?
Do you read carefully what I am writing ?

I often think you don't understand your own writing and from what I have seen others agree.

Again same mistake, you evidence is inside your experiences, so if your experiences are dream (which is at issue) then your evidence is not valid!

Your definition of a dream is based on your experiences. If you are claiming dream possibility outside your experiences then your claim is not valid.

Please understand that because you make the same mistake everytime.

As you can see from the previous entry, this "mistake" as you put it is initiated by your claim of possibility... not my response.

It is not because you don't see that reality break that it will never happen!

Time is a dimension local to our universe. If an inconsistency, non-persistency, or contradiction formed in reality then all of it would break. That includes our unvierse' past, present, and future.

You did not understand what I was saying, read carefully , it is self-evident
"it is only after you REALIZE that it was a hallucination that you KNOW that it was an hallucination" (being during or after hallucination)

I think you don't understand what you are writing. The original message uses past tense and addresses a hallucination recognition only after it ended. Your ammendment showed that you meant otherwise and the correct way to write it would be:

"It is only after a hallucination is recognized for what it is that you know the associated experience is hallucinatory"

But now that we have that out of the way, so what? Are you going to try and make an argument against learning?

It is not that you know, you believe that you are not dreaming.
Maybe as roxypoxy said, you are dreaming that you are not dreaming
You have to prove without evidence coming from your experience (because the validity of your experience are at the issue (namely they are maybe only dreams)) But it is not possible to use something outside your experience, so you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not!

READ CAREFULLY PLEASE!

It is again based on your experience which can maybe a dream! and lot of them are even false but I don't have time to answer them because anyway it does not affect the argument that these evidences are maybe part of your dream!

Don't you understand the argument?

Please see above

Your claim of possibility is based on your experiences... so the onus was on you from the start to prove the possibility exists without referring to your experiences... which cannot be done. So your claim is invalid or if we accept some basic experiences that allow for distinction between reality and dreams then we see the mismatch and your claim is falsified. Take your pick.

That is the point at issue whether finally what you believe to be not a dream is a dream. It is not by just saying it is not that you will save the problem, you have to prove it but you cannot!

As long as your claim of possibility is based on your experiences I can falsify it (which was done). If you want to invalidate my falsification because it is based on my experiences then I'll just turn around and invalidate your claim of possibility because it is based on your experiences. Like I said, your assertion stands invalidated or falsified. Take your pick.

It is a circular argument as I told you:

you say: The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality; THAT IS THE POINT AT ISSUE
hence, reality is not a dream.

Huh, did you just agree with me?

 

[ronan]

Your definition of a dream is based on your experiences. If you are claiming dream possibility outside your experiences then your claim is not valid.

why so?
we experienced dream in the sense that we know that we were sleeping and thus that it was false.
From this knowledge it follow that MAYBE you are also dreaming when you believe you are awake (as you believe that when you are in fact dreaming (in our experience) at least for the first second)

As you can see from the previous entry, this "mistake" as you put it is initiated by your claim of possibility... not my response.

Please understand I say that we cannot know, if we can, prove it that you are not dreaming

Time is a dimension local to our universe. If an inconsistency, non-persistency, or contradiction formed in reality then all of it would break. That includes our unvierse' past, present, and future.

Yes all would break but because it would only be a dream, it won't matter

I think you don't understand what you are writing. The original message uses past tense and addresses a hallucination recognition only after it ended. Your ammendment showed that you meant otherwise and the correct way to write it would be:
"It is only after a hallucination is recognized for what it is that you know the associated experience is hallucinatory"

It imply the same thing as I was saying:It is only after a dream is recognized for what it is that you know the associated experience is the result of a dream

But now that we have that out of the way, so what? Are you going to try and make an argument against learning?

Many case of people learn during dream. and even if it was not the case,
If you are dreaming then what you believe is knowledge, would in fact not be knowledge!
So your argument about knowledge is based on the fact that you assume you are not dreaming, but you have to prove it first

Your claim of possibility is based on your experiences... so the onus was on you from the start to prove the possibility exists without referring to your experiences... which cannot be done. So your claim is invalid or if we accept some basic experiences that allow for distinction between reality and dreams then we see the mismatch and your claim is falsified. Take your pick.

Which experiences allow you to separate a dream to a awake state?
And if they fails to indicate that you are in a dream, does it imply that they will allways fails ? No, not in a dream (the point at issue)

As long as your claim of possibility is based on your experiences I can falsify it (which was done). If you want to invalidate my falsification because it is based on my experiences then I'll just turn around and invalidate your claim of possibility because it is based on your experiences. Like I said, your assertion stands invalidated or falsified. Take your pick.

You don;t get it:
your basic argument is as follow:
you assume that you are not dreaming
then by taking evidence from your experiences (which you assumed is not a dream)
you conclude that you are not dreaming

It is completely circular

Huh, did you just agree with me?

No I copy your statement:
"The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality hence, reality is not a dream."

But the first part:"The properties of a dream don't correspond to the properties of waking consciousness in reality " IS THE POINT AT ISSUE

 

[Myles]

I suggest you look into what neuroscience has to say. Dreaming is accompanied by changes in the brain compared to a waking state. This has been shown to be true under laboratory conditions.

Speculation will get you nowhere because it is based on opinion; try science and get the facts !

 

[ronan]

I suggest you look into what neuroscience has to say. Dreaming is accompanied by changes in the brain compared to a waking state. This has been shown to be true under laboratory conditions.

Speculation will get you nowhere because it is based on opinion; try science and get the facts !

You do not understand the point, how many time I will have to repeat?

You have the experience of a science that is studying experiences that indicate that there is a brain that generate dream when you are sleeping.

all of these are experiences and if you are dreaming, then all of these are only part of your dream, they thus cannot be evidence.

You make again the same circular argument:
1) you assume that you are not dreaming (= your experiences correspond to the real world)
2) from that you talk about science that study the world who tell you that you are not dreaming because brain..blablabla...
3) And then you conclud ethat you are not dreaming

but 2) can only be valid if you are not dreaming! (Which is the point at issue)



As I said many time, you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not because any evidences that you can use for your point will come from experiences (which are maybe part of a dream!)

don't you understand this simple fact?

 

[codanblad]

You have the experience of a science that is studying experiences that indicate that there is a brain that generate dream when you are sleeping.

all of these are experiences and if you are dreaming, then all of these are only part of your dream, they thus cannot be evidence.

You make again the same circular argument:
1) you assume that you are not dreaming (= your experiences correspond to the real world)
2) from that you talk about science that study the world who tell you that you are not dreaming because brain..blablabla...
3) And then you conclud ethat you are not dreaming

but 2) can only be valid if you are not dreaming! (Which is the point at issue)

As I said many time, you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not because any evidences that you can use for your point will come from experiences (which are maybe part of a dream!)

don't you understand this simple fact?

i get it, but what's your point? do you think we'll awaken to the reality described as the afterlife? or are you simply exploring the concept? if this is a dream, will it be like other dreams, and forgotten once we awaken?

 

[ronan]

Finally!
thank codanblad I feel less alone

it was an answer to Crunchy Cat who was assuming (in some of his posts) that reality is what we observe (dogs, brain, bananas...) and that perceptions arise from brain.
I was saying that he cannot know that, he has first to prove it but it is impossible because we are maybe dreaming.

Crunchy Cat sometimes say that reality is "differences" (information) and stay modest about it saying that he don't what are these differences (sharing a Kantian view in some way) but sometime he talk about reality as what he perceive. (what is called naive realism or common-sense realism). This later case is vulnerable to the dreaming argument we just had.

Note: At least one thing we can know from our perception (even if they are dreams) is that consciousness exist.

 

[Myles]

You do not understand the point, how many time I will have to repeat?

You have the experience of a science that is studying experiences that indicate that there is a brain that generate dream when you are sleeping.

all of these are experiences and if you are dreaming, then all of these are only part of your dream, they thus cannot be evidence.

You make again the same circular argument:
1) you assume that you are not dreaming (= your experiences correspond to the real world)
2) from that you talk about science that study the world who tell you that you are not dreaming because brain..blablabla...
3) And then you conclud ethat you are not dreaming

but 2) can only be valid if you are not dreaming! (Which is the point at issue)



As I said many time, you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not because any evidences that you can use for your point will come from experiences (which are maybe part of a dream!)

don't you understand this simple fact?

I undwerstand what you are saying. If you wish to confuse yourself, carry on biut count me out. You are probably dreaming that you are dreaming that you are not dreaming that you are using a computer. Why bother/? I'm probably dreaming that I'm not dreaming that I'm dreaming that you wrote your post while you were dreaming that you were npot dreaming that you were dreaming....ad infinitum.

Your purpose intrigues me but I would not dream of qasking you for an explanation; you would simply dream something up. Dream on ! Adios !

 

[ronan]

I undwerstand what you are saying. If you wish to confuse yourself, carry on biut count me out. You are probably dreaming that you are dreaming that you are not dreaming that you are using a computer. Why bother/? I'm probably dreaming that I'm not dreaming that I'm dreaming that you wrote your post while you were dreaming that you were npot dreaming that you were dreaming....ad infinitum.

Your purpose intrigues me but I would not dream of qasking you for an explanation; you would simply dream something up. Dream on ! Adios !

I am not saying that I am dreaming nor I am not, I am saying this (the fact that we cannot know whether we are dreaming or not) as an answer to naive realism: indeed you cannot prove that what you see pertain to reality.

Secondly, even if you are dreaming, you know that consciousness exist.

Which is for a me an evidence of the existence of a conscious reality that I call god
Because we cannot have evidences of unconsciousness (as it cannot be part of our experiences) and more importantly consciousness can not arise from unconsciousness!

 

[Myles]

I am not saying that I am dreaming nor I am not, I am saying this (the fact that we cannot know whether we are dreaming or not) as an answer to naive realism: indeed you cannot prove that what you see pertain to reality.

Secondly, even if you are dreaming, you know that consciousness exist.

Which is for a me an evidence of the existence of a conscious reality that I call god
Because we cannot have evidences of unconsciousness (as it cannot be part of our experiences) and more importantly consciousness can not arise from unconsciousness!

I can now see where you are coming from. You deny the truth of empirical evidence on the grounds that it might always be shown to be wrong at some future time. You do, however, allow an exception; consciousness.
So tells us:

1. What is your definition of consciousness

2. Why are you not sceptical about consciousness ? Evidence ?

3. Where does god suddenly come from and why is your belief beyond doubt?


Your stance of extreme scepticism will not find much favour with philosophers. Let us go back to the question of fire and oxygen. Your claim is that we cannot prove that oxygen alone is required by fire, suggesting there may be other possibilities.

We can forecast what will happen if fire is deprived of oxygen. We can make a forecast and prove ourselves right time and again. At some time in the future this might not be so but I would be interested in why you believe this to be the case.

Whatever your answer, the implication is that we cannot be sure of anything. This raises the question of how you are sure you are right. Are you claiming access to some form of knowledge denied to the rest of us ? You appear not to doubt the existence of god. Why the exception ?

 

[ronan]

I can now see where you are coming from. You deny the truth of empirical evidence on the grounds that it might always be shown to be wrong at some future time. You do, however, allow an exception; consciousness.
So tells us:

1. What is your definition of consciousness

2. Why are you not sceptical about consciousness ? Evidence ?

3. Where does god suddenly come from and why is your belief beyond doubt?


Your stance of extreme scepticism will not find much favour with philosophers. Let us go back to the question of fire and oxygen. Your claim is that we cannot prove that oxygen alone is required by fire, suggesting there may be other possibilities.

We can forecast what will happen if fire is deprived of oxygen. We can make a forecast and prove ourselves right time and again. At some time in the future this might not be so but I would be interested in why you believe this to be the case.

Whatever your answer, the implication is that we cannot be sure of anything. This raises the question of how you are sure you are right. Are you claiming access to some form of knowledge denied to the rest of us ? You appear not to doubt the existence of god. Why the exception ?

1) consciousness is the feeling of what it is like to be something
2) the evidence is consciousness itself:
because you know and I know that we are conscious: so consciousness exist (even if you are dreaming, your consciousness exist)
3) now consciousness cannot come from unconsciousness so reality has to be conscious! this conscious reality, I call it god

 

[greenberg]

As I said many time, you cannot know whether you are dreaming or not because any evidences that you can use for your point will come from experiences (which are maybe part of a dream!)

This is another way to formulate the problem of solipsism ...