Dreaming is not 'completely subjective'

[Enmos]

Brain activities like thinking, imagining, etc. would be subjective if dreaming is subjective given what you had said about dreaming. I am not making claims about what, I suppose, you would call the 'object brain'. I am not sure what claims can be made about such a thing if all we have to go on is subjective.

It seems you're doing the same thing as Vk now.
There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective. What we experience of these processes is subjective.
The reason I said the brain itself is an object as well was to point to these objective processes rather then what we experience of them.

In other words saying that dreams are completely subjective is likely to be a pejorative use of the term subjective. IOW nothing encountered or learned from a dream will have objective application or contain truth in practical ways. This is not the case. But if we are going to define dreaming in the way you did, I wanted to point out that mental activities that we generally think of as being useful, practical and 'about' objective reality also fit under your definition.

What's the problem with that ? Maybe when we dream some switch is just flipped to dream-mode

I have been pretty habitual here. If someone has a belief I tend to try to point out some of the potential implications of that belief that they may not have considered. Perhaps someone is comfortable dismissing dream as subjective but is less comfortable dismissing throughts and so-called rational mental processes completely subjective.

I agree, but I really don't think that our willingness to accept or reject something has any bearing on reality.

You, Enmos, tend to be comfortable with the implications of what you say. Kudos to you. But you make a great foil for me to generate the implications with.

I'm sorry, could you please rephrase that last sentence ?

 

[Enmos]

My point is that dreams seemed to offer information about what most people would call objective things.

If you label dreams as completely subjective, it seems to imply something like it is an experience which relates only to the experiencer and has no information that can be verified and of use to others, certainly not in the development of tools, for example, or deeper understanding of what is 'out there' and accessible to others. But this is clearly not the case. I am specifically choosing scientific examples, though I think there are many other examples out there that are just as objective. In other words that have to do with what is out there.

For example:



or (and I think this one is a beauty because it shows how the dream images were more perceptive than waking ones in a sensory way)

No no.. I said perception is directly based on objective reality and that dreams are based on those perceptions. I think you misunderstood.

 

[Myles]

That is actually not a quote of me.. just for the record lol

A thoudsand apologies. That's the first mistake I've made on the last 40 tears.

 

[Enmos]

A thoudsand apologies. That's the first mistake I've made on the last 40 tears.

The last 40 tears huh ? lol

 

[Myles]

Can we not agree that objects can only be experienced subjectively ? We do not know what things are in and of themselves. For example. a bee's view of a flower is different from mine.

Neuronall activity is objective. i.e., it exists. Our dreams are the result of such activity manipulating information that has been stored iin the brain. It follows that dreams are subjective because the material being manipuilated is our subjective interpretation of the world.

 

[Myles]

The last 40 tears huh ? lol

Yep, I remember it well. There was an occasion when I thought I was wrong.That was a mistake.

 

[Enmos]

Can we not agree that objects can only be experienced subjectively ? We do not know what things are in and of themselves. For example. a bee's view of a flower is different from mine.

Neuronall activity is objective. i.e., it exists. Our dreams are the result of such activity manipulating information that has been stored iin the brain. It follows that dreams are subjective because the material being manipuilated is our subjective interpretation of the world.

I agree. Glad we settled it, the thread can be closed now lol

 

[Enmos]

Yep, I remember it well. There was an occasion when I thought I was wrong.That was a mistake.

So you were.. erm.. :scratchin:

 

[Myles]

So you were.. erm.. :scratchin:

Right as usual. I'm off to dinner now . The butler is banging the gong and I'm not even properly attired. Must dash, old bean. Toodle pip.

 

[Enmos]

Right as usual. I'm off to dinner now . The butler is banging the gong and I'm not even properly attired. Must dash, old bean. Toodle pip.

Yea, I'm off too. See ya..

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

No no.. I said perception is directly based on objective reality and that dreams are based on those perceptions. I think you misunderstood.

Perception, perhaps, but you acknowledged that thinking fit the same description you gave for dreaming, thus making it subjective. Thinking involves remembering, mixing, extending and reinterpreting perceptions - if I may paraphrase you, and thus is just as subjective as dreaming.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

It seems you're doing the same thing as Vk now.
There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective. What we experience of these processes is subjective.
The reason I said the brain itself is an object as well was to point to these objective processes rather then what we experience of them.

No I am not taking that position. I'll leave it to V to decide if he is. But it is a side issue.

What's the problem with that ? Maybe when we dream some switch is just flipped to dream-mode

also not an issue.

I agree, but I really don't think that our willingness to accept or reject something has any bearing on reality.

It is a part of reality. You're accepting or not does not change it's status. I see this as a dynamic interchange, an interpersonal one. Certainly finding out what is true and not true is interesting and fun, but it is not the only thing I am doing.

I'm sorry, could you please rephrase that last sentence ?

I pointed out that your definition of dreaming had implications about the subjective nature of thinking. Both processes could be nicely described the way you did. Some rationalists might be bothered by having this pointed out, wanting thinking, especially 'rational' thinking to be priviledged. You, on the other hand, accepted the implications. I like that about you. What I have found repeatedly with you is that you are willing to be consistant, even if it might not be so pleasant. I think this is unique. If we are going to burst bubbles we must allow out our own bubbles to be on the table. If they are.

That's all. I do not agree with your definition of what dreaming must be. But that is less important to me than getting you to agree to the implications of your definition. No getting needed on my part. You simply acknowledged it. This separates you, I think, from others here. I called you a foil, perhaps sounding board might be a better more respectful term, not that I meant disrespect with the other term. I better explain things when we interact.

 

[Myles]

Sowhat.....

I'd be intertested to know what you think of my post 45 above,

 

[Vkothii]

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

 

[Myles]

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

No offence meant,.but I'd say you still haven't understood what was said to you.

 

[Vkothii]

I'd say you still haven't understood what was said to you.

Why do you say this, though?

How does what you say show that dreams are "completely subjective"?
What does "completely subjective" actually mean?
(I say it means nothing, or it has no meaning.)

And this is still a "problem", for me anyway. The implication that there can be such a thing as a separate. distinct subject. or object. Clearly this is wrong, there are no such animals.

Me: "Are you implying that [subjects and objects] exist as separate concepts from each other? "

Enmos: "Uhm yea.. are you implying they don't ?"

Someone appears to believe that they can conceive of a distinct subject (but refuses to give an example, or says they can't give one).
The reason they can't, although they also don't seem to want to acknowledge this, is because no such thing exists.

 

[Myles]

Sure

 

[Vkothii]

Are you?

 

[Vkothii]

There are biochemical and electrical processes taken place in the brain when we think, imagine etc. These processes are objective.

Objective means a subject "sees" them as objects, right?
Or is that wrong?

What we experience of these processes is subjective.

Subjective means that a subject "sees" objects, right?
Or wrong again?

So, where is there a "complete subject" in all this? Or a "complete object"?

Do they exist? Is there such a thing as a subject which sees no objects?
Is there such a thing as an object which is not seen by any subject?
Or is that the wrong question?

Is the answer that any "completely subjective" experience is also "completely objective"?
The phrase "completely subjective", implies "completely objective", since a subject can't be a subject unless there are objects. Likewise there aren't any objects unless a subject experiences them (subjectively and objectively).

P.S. Don't feel any obligation here, I mean you can just ignore this.

Some of the posters here at 'forum are quite practised at ignoring questions.
Particularly those questions that might cast some doubt on their "philosophy".

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Still haven't seen any evidence that a subject is a distinct phenomenon from an object.

Because there are no such things as distinct subjects or distinct objects, like I said a while back.
To be a subject, a subject requires objects; to be an object, an object requires subjects. They can't be separate, even if you imagine they can be.

You can apply different meanings (from some dictionary, say), but you can't describe a subject in an "object-free" way. Same with an object, there is no subject-free object. Such things don't make any sense.
Well, maybe to some they do.

Could you apply this to dreams.