sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Thinking is a process where memories,verbal mulling mix and imagination mix. I think a case can be made that what is imagined is also built on memories, at least to some degree. Dreams are also made up of these REHASHINGS of perceptions. They tend, at least mine do, to have less abstract thought. But they have some, at least mine do, and clearly some of the examples of useful insights about the objective world I mentioned earlier had those elements. Some in symbolic form, some in direct form.
So both thinking and dreaming at at least one step remove from perception. Both can and have been used to develop understandings and useful tools for dealing with objects. I cannot see how one can call dreaming completely subjective without also calling thinking this. Enmos seems to be making the case that dreaming is not a process where the subject comes in contact with objects. I do not agree with this as a generalization, but I do not need to focus on that to point out that the same is true of thinking.
If people are willing to accept that thinking is also completely subjective, I am pretty much ready to pack up my little display cart.
I do think that strong arguments can be made that perceiving, especially what we consciously experience of it, already involves interpretations, selection, editing, contortion, blind spots, cultural biases, habits that make for repetition rather than open experiencing and so on. But I leave that to another camp.
I think given the fact that both thinking and dreaming are experiences of something real they involve objective elements - if one must split things up into objective and subjective. I think the proof of this comes in that both can create verifiable useful tools and insights about what is happening and can be done to objects and subjects 'out there'. They are both connected in some way to objects. Further in both we have nerve cells receiving input from real things. In other words our nerves are not reacting to our mind, unless you are comfortable with that dualism, even in dreams.
I consider this actually rather conservative. I think stronger claims could be made for the objectivity involved in both processes. But I figure it's best to have a foundation before moving into more controversial areas.
So both thinking and dreaming at at least one step remove from perception. Both can and have been used to develop understandings and useful tools for dealing with objects. I cannot see how one can call dreaming completely subjective without also calling thinking this. Enmos seems to be making the case that dreaming is not a process where the subject comes in contact with objects. I do not agree with this as a generalization, but I do not need to focus on that to point out that the same is true of thinking.
If people are willing to accept that thinking is also completely subjective, I am pretty much ready to pack up my little display cart.
I do think that strong arguments can be made that perceiving, especially what we consciously experience of it, already involves interpretations, selection, editing, contortion, blind spots, cultural biases, habits that make for repetition rather than open experiencing and so on. But I leave that to another camp.
I think given the fact that both thinking and dreaming are experiences of something real they involve objective elements - if one must split things up into objective and subjective. I think the proof of this comes in that both can create verifiable useful tools and insights about what is happening and can be done to objects and subjects 'out there'. They are both connected in some way to objects. Further in both we have nerve cells receiving input from real things. In other words our nerves are not reacting to our mind, unless you are comfortable with that dualism, even in dreams.
I consider this actually rather conservative. I think stronger claims could be made for the objectivity involved in both processes. But I figure it's best to have a foundation before moving into more controversial areas.