Dreaming is not 'completely subjective'

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.
 
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.

Here:
I can't show you anything subjective because subjectivity resides only in the mind.
I can't show you anything objective because we can only perceive subjectively.

I think you try to look at the 'big picture' and so somehow merge the two concepts..

And here:
You think ?

Concept 1: Subjective
sub·jec·tive
–adjective
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective

Concept 2: Objective
ob·jec·tive
–noun
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective
 
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.

Well yea.. you don't agree ?
 
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.
Well thanks :)
I'm just being honest, it's what I expect of everyone else here too.

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.
Ah thanks for clearing that up. I had to look up the word 'foil', I was kinda hoping you didn't mean it the way I thought you meant it ;)

But home come you don't agree ?
If it's not too much trouble could you reproduce from memory what my definition is, so I can see whether you 'got' what I meant ?
 
Objective means a subject "sees" them as objects, right?
Or is that wrong?
Wrong.
Objective is something that exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Subjective means that a subject "sees" objects, right?
Or wrong again?
What is a subject exactly according to you ? I believe I asked it before..

So, where is there a "complete subject" in all this? Or a "complete object"?
Awaiting your answer on what a subject is to you.
Why do you feel the need to use quotes and attach the word 'complete' ?
To answer the second question: everywhere.

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?
Again awaiting your answer.
Second question: Objective reality cannot be accurately be perceived.

Is the answer that any "completely subjective" experience is also "completely objective"?
No. Experience is subjective.

The phrase "completely subjective", implies "completely objective", since a subject can't be a subject unless there are objects.
Please explain 'subject' to me.. or are you camouflaging the word 'object' ?

Likewise there aren't any objects unless a subject experiences them (subjectively and objectively).
Ok, this is completely moronic..
 
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.

The red part is IT.
If you agree that perception is subjective then I honestly cannot see how you can say that thinking and dreaming are not.
 
The red part is IT.
If you agree that perception is subjective then I honestly cannot see how you can say that thinking and dreaming are not.

I am doing two things at once and just in case that is confusing - which would not be surprising- let me list those two things clearly:
1) I am making a case that dreaming is not entirely subjective
2) I am pointing out that if you or someone else think it is, this may cause you problems.

So the portion you highlighted in red is my pointing out that your saying that perception is of objective things is not on so solid ground.

I would also like to point out again, though it seemed to irritate you last time I did this, that you are contradicting yourself. Your post, which is quoted above is your thought which you seem quite sure is objective. You are not talking about your perception, you are talking about perception in general. How is it that your thinking, which is subjective, makes such complete claims about objective reality. I still think you want your cake and eat it too. You want to say that your thoughts are merely subjective, as are mine, and everyone else's, and yet yours, at least, are, at times universally applicable. In fact you are quite sure other people's thoughts, at least some of them, are wrong. How is you believe what you believe and yet are confident that your subjective thoughts are hooked in with objective reality?

A second issue I need to raise then is: given that some people have managed to find what seems to be objective uses from their subjective processes - thinking, dreaming - how is this possible? Were these merely lucky guesses, Enmos? How is it that some people's thinking seems to rate above random when it comes to applications if their thinking is subjective?
 
Well yea.. you don't agree ?
I notice that any possible use of the word objective seems accessible to this 'completely subjective' process. If the word objective has some meaning - and I am not sure, as Greenberg also seems to be unsure, that the split is useful - then, at least sometimes both dreaming and thinking are objective. They relate accurately to things not of the self.
 
I am doing two things at once and just in case that is confusing - which would not be surprising- let me list those two things clearly:
1) I am making a case that dreaming is not entirely subjective
2) I am pointing out that if you or someone else think it is, this may cause you problems.

So the portion you highlighted in red is my pointing out that your say that perception is of objective things is not so solid ground.
Huh ? The portion in red makes my point that perception is subjective but based on objective reality.

How does it create problems ?

I would also like to point out again, though it seemed to irritate you last time I did this, that you are contradicting yourself. Your post, which is quoted above is your thought which you seem quite sure is objective. You are not talking about your perception, you are talking about perception in general. How is it that your thinking, which is subjective, makes such complete claims about objective reality.
My thoughts are not objective.. and I never claimed they are.
I am talking about perception in general which includes my own.
I have never made complete claims about objective reality.

A second issue I need to raise then is: given that some people have managed to find what seems to be objective uses from their subjective processes - thinking, dreaming - how is this possible? Were these merely lucky guesses, Enmos? How is it that some people's thinking seems to rate above random when it comes to applications if their thinking is subjective?
Because their brains are efficient at it ? I don't see the problem.
Btw. what is an objective use ?
 
I notice that any possible use of the word objective seems accessible to this 'completely subjective' process. If the word objective has some meaning - and I am not sure, as Greenberg also seems to be unsure, that the split is useful - then, at least sometimes both dreaming and thinking are objective. They relate accurately to things not of the self.

Whether the split is useful or not does not have any bearing on reality.
They relate..
 
Huh ? The portion in red makes my point that perception is subjective but based on objective reality.
I think you need to explain how the subjective connects to the objective. If it is subjective - my thinking or perceiving - how is it also about the objective. If it is about the objective this means that it may be distorted but it is also accurate. To the degree that it is accurate it is objective.

My thoughts are not objective.. and I never claimed they are.
I am talking about perception in general which includes my own.
I have never made complete claims about objective reality.
Here's an example:
perception is subjective but based on objective reality

Just take a step back for a moment and notice Enmos that you are indeed stating bluntly very profound - by this I mean all encompassing and related to foundations - statements about what is.
You are stating that there is an objective reality. You are saying that our perception of it is subjective - which means, amongst other things, not objective to you. Perception is based on this reality. Dreaming and thinking are not based on this reality. They are reinterpretations. These are a lot of strong statements about the nature of us, our modes of being, reality and how we relate to it. We are, after all, a part of reality. To state with certainty that you know that perception is based on objective reality is to make statements about objective reality.

You distinguish between thinking and perceiving and know that they are based on different things, or are not grounded in the same thing.

This is all your subjective thoughts making claims about objective reality. If you are right, how did you manage to figure this out with your subjective thoughts? Since these, unlike perception, are not based on objective reality. And how did these scientists manage to come up with ideas that seem to describe and function in objective reality in dreams that are not based on objective reality.

That's the cake and eat to aspect for me. You want to talk about objective reality. You state your thoughts about it while at the same time asserting that thinking is not based on objective reality. How would you even know such a thing? And at the very best, I can imagine you could only be sure this applied to yourself. You certainly would have no access to other people and their skills. How do you know your assumptions that we are all the same are based on objective reality?

Because their brains are efficient at it ? I don't see the problem.
Btw. what is an objective use ?
I can imagine a bicycle with wings like a bird made out of straws. But I build it and it does not fly. Some of the examples I gave earlier show that people can imagine or dream things and make them work. I am not arguing for universal value in my use of the term 'use'. I mean it works. I could give you the design and you could go off and make one too.
 
I think you need to explain how the subjective connects to the objective. If it is subjective - my thinking or perceiving - how is it also about the objective. If it is about the objective this means that it may be distorted but it is also accurate. To the degree that it is accurate it is objective.
Subjective - relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

I think you're going at it backwards.
Start in objective reality then work your way towards subjectivity.
Light for example is just electromagnetic radiation of a wavelength that the light receptors in the eye can react to by sending impulses to the brain. The impulses then go through different parts of the brain before they 'end up' in the visual cortex. All the while the impulses are processed and modified in certain ways. So what we eventually see is not only not objective reality but it's not even what our retina originally picked up.
These images can then be used to ponder the qualities of an object. But the image we have of the object is different from objective reality, though based on it.

I hope this helped.. :)


Here's an example:

Just take a step back for a moment and notice Enmos that you are indeed stating bluntly very profound - by this I mean all encompassing and related to foundations - statements about what is.
You are stating that there is an objective reality. You are saying that our perception of it is subjective - which means, amongst other things, not objective to you. Perception is based on this reality. Dreaming and thinking are not based on this reality. They are reinterpretations. These are a lot of strong statements about the nature of us, our modes of being, reality and how we relate to it. We are, after all, a part of reality. To state with certainty that you know that perception is based on objective reality is to make statements about objective reality.
Dreaming and thinking are based in objective reality, only not directly.
And while I have made statements about objective reality there are by no means complete as you said earlier, and they are mirrored at perceived reality (subjective reality).

You distinguish between thinking and perceiving and know that they are based on different things, or are not grounded in the same thing.
I never said that, see above..

This is all your subjective thoughts making claims about objective reality. If you are right, how did you manage to figure this out with your subjective thoughts? Since these, unlike perception, are not based on objective reality. And how did these scientists manage to come up with ideas that seem to describe and function in objective reality in dreams that are not based on objective reality.
Sigh.. lol ;)

That's the cake and eat to aspect for me. You want to talk about objective reality. You state your thoughts about it while at the same time asserting that thinking is not based on objective reality. How would you even know such a thing? And at the very best, I can imagine you could only be sure this applied to yourself. You certainly would have no access to other people and their skills. How do you know your assumptions that we are all the same are based on objective reality?
Ok, you are basing all these questions and statement on something you think I said. I think you misread or misunderstood somewhere..

I can imagine a bicycle with wings like a bird made out of straws. But I build it and it does not fly. Some of the examples I gave earlier show that people can imagine or dream things and make them work. I am not arguing for universal value in my use of the term 'use'. I mean it works. I could give you the design and you could go off and make one too.
I still don't see why that is a problem for you :shrug:
 
I realized that I am getting confused by your phrases 'grounded in' and 'based on'. Or you are getting confused by my uses of these or similar terms. I think this has led to some of our confusions. That said I still feel you are missing something obvious about your stance.

I have a feeling this is related to this:

I think you're going at it backwards.
Start in objective reality then work your way towards subjectivity.

I was really glad you said this. You are not alone in thinking that I am coming at it backwards. I think this is very odd. One does in fact start within subjective reality. One cannot start out there. Or at least I can't. I think either you are constituted differently - as are a number of rationalists - or you are very confused about where one must start. To reach that 'objective' account you gave of visual perception you had to begin with subjective experience, interpretation, analysis, intuition to build up this objective viewpoint. Things that you call subjective. To me it makes sense to begin where I began. Not to look at maps made by others and say that I begin with their map. Actually no. Their map would be unintelligible to you without perceiving, thinking, imagining....And you decided you liked that map and were drawn to look at it, read it
by moving
outward.

It makes sense for me to retrace steps. To begin at the beginning, where we all still are, however much we may think we are our ideas.

And I have taken several college courses in sensory physiology and animal sensory physiology - just cause these topics interested me, also from that 'objective' map approach. I am not saying these maps are wrong, limited perhaps, but that is another topic. it's just that I know what that map is made of. How I made it so to speak when and after I sought it out.

If you are moving in the other direction, then on some level you must be building a self, your subjective self, out of facts about the world. Moving inward toward Enmos, quite unlike how I have learned. How fascinating.

But I suspect our differences will make communicating useless, then. I suspect that what I have written above will simply be confusing for you. You think the map is more real that what I would call the territory. Using Alfred Korzybski's terms.
 
Last edited:
Enmos said:
Objective is something that exists independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?
 
Last edited:
So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?

You're taking a different approach to the gap with Enmos, but I think it is the same gap.
 
I realized that I am getting confused by your phrases 'grounded in' and 'based on'. Or you are getting confused by my uses of these or similar terms. I think this has led to some of our confusions. That said I still feel you are missing something obvious about your stance.

I have a feeling this is related to this:

I was really glad you said this. You are not alone in thinking that I am coming at it backwards. I think this is very odd. One does in fact start within subjective reality. One cannot start out there. Or at least I can't. I think either you are constituted differently - as are a number of rationalists - or you are very confused about where one must start. To reach that 'objective' account you gave of visual perception you had to begin with subjective experience, interpretation, analysis, intuition to build up this objective viewpoint. Things that you call subjective. To me it makes sense to begin where I began. Not to look at maps made by others and say that I begin with their map. Actually no. Their map would be unintelligible to you without perceiving, thinking, imagining....And you decided you liked that map and were drawn to look at it, read it
by moving
outward.

It makes sense for me to retrace steps. To begin at the beginning, where we all still are, however much we may think we are our ideas.
But if you retrace steps you aren't beginning at the beginning.
What about my account of visual perception do you not agree with ?
Can you give me your version of visual perception ?

And I have taken several college courses in sensory physiology and animal sensory physiology - just cause these topics interested me, also from that 'objective' map approach. I am not saying these maps are wrong, limited perhaps, but that is another topic. it's just that I know what that map is made of. How I made it so to speak when and after I sought it out.
It may be limited but you know perception is warped. Light is not really the thing we experience as light.. if you know what I mean.

If you are moving in the other direction, then on some level you must be building a self, your subjective self, out of facts about the world. Moving inward toward Enmos, quite unlike how I have learned. How fascinating.
I think that is very close to the truth, especially since my own brain is also part of the objective landscape so to speak.

But I suspect our differences will make communicating useless, then. I suspect that what I have written above will simply be confusing for you. You think the map is more real that what I would call the territory. Using Alfred Korzybski's terms.
While the map is largely unknowable it certainly is real and some things can be said about it when mirrored with how we perceive reality.
 
Then there would be no difference between dreaming and waking which would also include all 'interpretations' of the brain.

Why do you assume the brain cannot operate in different modes, each of which is subjective other than the associated physiological processes ?
 
So an object doesn't need a subject, in order to exist?
Certainly not.

I'm going through this in the smallest steps I can, somewhere there's a contradiction, but it keeps getting ignored or stepped over, I need to stub a toe on it (not necessarily my toe, but).

P.S. My favourite version of "subject" is: "something that can perceive objects".
I agree with that definition, provided that the something can only perceive an object subjectively as is inherent of perception.
A subject in this sense is really just a special/particular kind of object though.

What's yours? What do you claim experiences "subjective reality" or "objective reality"?
Sensor cells react to particular parts of objective reality which causes impulses that are sent to the brain. The brain interprets them and so fabricates subjective reality.

Where objective reality is concerned, the one that can't be accurately perceived, are there any subjects needed in it for it to exist?
If not, how does a subject perceive objects at all, even inaccurately?
No, and see above.
 
But if you retrace steps you aren't beginning at the beginning.
What about my account of visual perception do you not agree with ?
Can you give me your version of visual perception ?

I think I made it clear I didn't disagree with it. It is however starting outside yourself, with thoughts, by the way, that your consider subjective.

It may be limited but you know perception is warped. Light is not really the thing we experience as light.. if you know what I mean.
That depends on how you are defining the word 'light'. If you are talking about the experienced phenomenon and define light as that which is experienced, I disagree. My point is that our starting point in the search for knowledge is via experience. The word light comes from an experienced phenomenon. Later scientists came along and called something that is not 'really the thing we experience as light' and yes I do know what you mean. To get to that scientific definition, the idea of it, we had to use perception, terms drawn from perception or experience, thoughts and so on. Now you can come and say that what we experience isn't really light. OK. I know what you mean and you are correct given the way you are using the word light. But the debt to experience is being skipped over. Everything meaningful is derived from experience and can only be communicated about in experiential terms. Now you want to say that what we call light really isn't light. Who gave you control of that word? Why should we prioritize a theorized idea of light over what we directly experience which is the very medium your theory of light is built on?

Again. I am not saying your idea of light - or the idea that you agree with and are repeating is wrong. I am saying it is strange for you to think you can begin there, when in fact you did not. And the history of the word both in our individual lives and in etymology shows this.


I think that is very close to the truth, especially since my own brain is also part of the objective landscape so to speak.
I don't think you understood what I meant.


While the map is largely unknowable it certainly is real and some things can be said about it when mirrored with how we perceive reality.
Maps are knowable. Some people would say the objects it describes are not. Experience is knowable. Here it is. It is the root. Any theory that tells you that experience is not real has undermined any possible evidence it has. Specific mistakes can of course be made in the way we interpret out experience. Of course. But it you want to make the whole realm unreal, you have no legs to stand on.
 
Back
Top