Dreaming is not 'completely subjective'

[Vkothii]

Subjective reality is kind of similar to experience. Subjective reality is just any 'colored' representation of (a part of) objective reality.
Subject don't see objective reality. And there is just one reality; objective reality. Only our experience/perception of it varies.

Subjective reality and experience, huh? These just appear somewhere in the "conscious" brain?
If a subject doesn't see "objective reality" how can any subject say there is one? How can you say it exists if you don't see it?

Objective reality contains everything, including the subject. The subjects experience of objective reality is subjective 'reality'.

How do you know that "objective reality" contains "everything"?

The external object can be the subject.

So a subjective reality can consist of a single subject, who perceives themselves as a single object, then.
This is important, even if you can't see why. I'll get back to this though, with any luck. (hah!)

To begin with, the senses filter the external stimuli; they can only detect a small part of objective reality. This is in essence where it begins.

Subjective reality "begins", with the detection of stimuli by the "senses"?

Then the brain takes this data and strips it of irrelevant data. Then the remaining data is interpreted using memory and knowledge after which it is presented to the consciousness as subjective reality.

Ah, it gets "presented" to "the consciousness".
And it's already subjective? Or what you mean with "as subjective reality", is what exactly?

It "becomes" subjective, when it gets "presented"?

I can locate all the brain areas if you want, except consciousness.

So this "conscious" part of the brain is like an adjoint space then? Something that can only be "found" by determining what operations are allowed in the space?

 

[Myles]

As usual , you are having a hard time coming to terms with a straightforward explanation. This seems to happen because you are more interested in semantics and nitpicking than in making an effort to understand what is being said.
One last time:

What we experience is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. If you ask how we know there is an objective reality, if we cannot see it, the alternative is to assume that there is nothing there to be experienced, If you wish to take that view, you are in a minority of one.

Think of Plato's cave. What the inhabitants of the cave saw were shadows of reality. So, if we follow your question to its logical conclusion, you would want to know how we can know there is an object corresponding to a shadow because we cannot see the object. A silly question.

Objective reality consists of everything external to ourselves, whether we can perceive it or not. It includes our bodies. Have you an alternative explanation ?

As a single subject I can subjectivly perceive my objective body. My perception can only be subjective. I have no idea what it is like to be a foot. Have you ?

Subjective reality is the end result a process whereby the brain interprets the external world. The process begins when our sensory apparatus is stimulated.

I become aware/conscious of an object when my brain has interpreted the associated data, not before. I believe this is what Enmos is saying but you seem to be hung up on the word "presented" . I think it's perfectly legitimate to say presented which, for me would carry the same meaning as entered. You are looking to find fault and quibble without making an effort to understand what is being said. What is presented to consciousness is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. Do you need someone to draw you a picture ?

Presented to consciousness, enters consciousness convey the same meaning.

People who know something of neuroscience are hesitant to talk of consciousness except in very broad terms. It is not clear what consciousness is other than to say it is some faculty of the brain. Professor Susan Greenfield said in a recent article that it may take fifty years before we know what sort of questions to ask and what answers would be meaningful. If you wish to rush into a minefield, feel free to do so; just don't expect any answers

 

[Enmos]

Subjective reality and experience, huh? These just appear somewhere in the "conscious" brain?
If a subject doesn't see "objective reality" how can any subject say there is one? How can you say it exists if you don't see it?
How do you know that "objective reality" contains "everything"?
So a subjective reality can consist of a single subject, who perceives themselves as a single object, then.
This is important, even if you can't see why. I'll get back to this though, with any luck. (hah!)
Subjective reality "begins", with the detection of stimuli by the "senses"?
Ah, it gets "presented" to "the consciousness".
And it's already subjective? Or what you mean with "as subjective reality", is what exactly?

It "becomes" subjective, when it gets "presented"?
So this "conscious" part of the brain is like an adjoint space then? Something that can only be "found" by determining what operations are allowed in the space?

You know so little, and yet you are so arrogant.
I am done talking to you.. you seem deliberately obtuse.
Good luck.

 

[Enmos]

As usual , you are having a hard time coming to terms with a straightforward explanation. This seems to happen because you are more interested in semantics and nitpicking than in making an effort to understand what is being said.
One last time:

What we experience is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. If you ask how we know there is an objective reality, if we cannot see it, the alternative is to assume that there is nothing there to be experienced, If you wish to take that view, you are in a minority of one.

Think of Plato's cave. What the inhabitants of the cave saw were shadows of reality. So, if we follow your question to its logical conclusion, you would want to know how we can know there is an object corresponding to a shadow because we cannot see the object. A silly question.

Objective reality consists of everything external to ourselves, whether we can perceive it or not. It includes our bodies. Have you an alternative explanation ?

As a single subject I can subjectivly perceive my objective body. My perception can only be subjective. I have no idea what it is like to be a foot. Have you ?

Subjective reality is the end result a process whereby the brain interprets the external world. The process begins when our sensory apparatus is stimulated.

I become aware/conscious of an object when my brain has interpreted the associated data, not before. I believe this is what Enmos is saying but you seem to be hung up on the word "presented" . I think it's perfectly legitimate to say presented which, for me would carry the same meaning as entered. You are looking to find fault and quibble without making an effort to understand what is being said. What is presented to consciousness is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. Do you need someone to draw you a picture ?

Presented to consciousness, enters consciousness convey the same meaning.

People who know something of neuroscience are hesitant to talk of consciousness except in very broad terms. It is not clear what consciousness is other than to say it is some faculty of the brain. Professor Susan Greenfield said in a recent article that it may take fifty years before we know what sort of questions to ask and what answers would be meaningful. If you wish to rush into a minefield, feel free to do so; just don't expect any answers

Thanks Myles at least there is someone that gets it.

 

[Vkothii]

What we experience is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality.

I think this could be the nth time that particular statement has been made. What does it mean, though?

If you ask how we know there is an objective reality, if we cannot see it, the alternative is to assume that there is nothing there to be experienced, If you wish to take that view, you are in a minority of one.

So either there is this "objective reality" that we can never actually see, or there's "nothing"?

Think of Plato's cave. What the inhabitants of the cave saw were shadows of reality. So, if we follow your question to its logical conclusion, you would want to know how we can know there is an object corresponding to a shadow because we cannot see the object. A silly question.

Sure. So is any question about why an objective reality exists, that we can never "know" exists.

Objective reality consists of everything external to ourselves, whether we can perceive it or not.

So "objective" reality is imagined, then. It's there even if we don't know about it?

As a single subject I can subjectivly perceive my objective body. My perception can only be subjective. I have no idea what it is like to be a foot. Have you ?

Actually I do have quite a good idea what being a foot is like, because I have two of them; we're quite attached, you might say, to the same physical (and neurological) experience.

What you mean is feet dont "know" what it's like to "think about" what being a foot is like. Maybe annelids and bugs don't either.

Subjective reality is the end result a process whereby the brain interprets the external world. The process begins when our sensory apparatus is stimulated.

I become aware/conscious of an object when my brain has interpreted the associated data, not before. I believe this is what Enmos is saying but you seem to be hung up on the word "presented" . I think it's perfectly legitimate to say presented which, for me would carry the same meaning as entered.

OK. So now it's: "objective reality is entered into subjective reality".

You are looking to find fault and quibble without making an effort to understand what is being said. What is presented to consciousness is a subjective interpretation of an objective reality. Do you need someone to draw you a picture ?

I understand this statement as a picture of something that "appears" because it is "presented". By something.
To something, which is a subjective "experience".

Presented to consciousness, enters consciousness convey the same meaning.

Check.

People who know something of neuroscience are hesitant to talk of consciousness except in very broad terms. It is not clear what consciousness is other than to say it is some faculty of the brain. Professor Susan Greenfield said in a recent article that it may take fifty years before we know what sort of questions to ask and what answers would be meaningful.

But whatever it is, it's the thing that "perceives" this objective reality thing? Because it gets "presented", or it "commutes" to it?

If you wish to rush into a minefield, feel free to do so; just don't expect any answers

I'll let you know if I lose a leg.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Agreed. I don't see a problem with that..

Maybe there is a confusing to what either of us meant with dreaming. The physiological process of dreaming (brain activity) is objective; the brain is part of objective reality. What is subjective is what we experience of the process, namely the dream.

Yes, I am working with those ideas.

Dreams are based on previous experiences, not on current ones..

All experienced activities are including thinking. Scientific research, drawing conclusions, sifting through results, all works with memories.

Further any experience is mediated. The light bounces off the object at time A, it travels through space, it reaches the eye, then it is transformed, still later in time - we can call it c - travels through the nerve system and brain and is FIRST noted unconciously. Then these impressions are edited and finally experienced by the conscious mind - though not always. We can duck or cover our eye, not consciously knowing why. The visual threat was processed unconsciously and THERE WAS NO TIME to convince the conscious mind to make a decision. Nothing direct here at all, according to science.

Despite that my eye motor system is wonderful for prediction the movements of objects. I can do calculas while catching a frisbee. What you want to say is completely subjective is wonderfully effective in the objective world in many ways. I can work my way through that dark room through memory. Is my subjective map 100%? No. Are the maps made from science 100%? perhaps sometimes. If you want to say that we as humans can via a process decide on objective truths about the objective world, how do we know science can do this? Well, it seems to work. All I keep saying is that my supposedly completely subjective processes also work, even, sometimes, dreams.

If it works, if it is effective in navigating the objective world and making predictions it satisfies the same criteria as scientific methods do.

Maybe some direct perceptions are interwoven, like sounds..
But other than that, if you dream about being in your old school building for example how can the visual experience of that be directly based on objective reality ? Rather it is based on previous experiences of objective reality, thus indirectly based on on objective reality.

As I pointed out above, there is nothing direct about perception. And there is certainly nothing direct about scientific methodologies. A great deal of the work is done well after 'perceptions'. Also before 'perceptions' in the planning stages. And this is not to say there are faults in scientific methods. What I am pointing out is that they are not direct either and that they are judged on their effectiveness in prediction.

I can damn well walk through diverse, newly presented dark rooms, using the supposedly 'completely subjective' tools of memory and imagination.

In fact I would be happy to compete with robots that do not use senses simulating vision or radar etc. but must work from memory.

How do I navigate the world of objects if my memories are completely subjective? My experienced memories.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Thanks Myles at least there is someone that gets it.

It must have been so lonely being the truth bearer. I am glad you have company.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Thanks Myles at least there is someone that gets it.

Hmm. I think you mean he agrees with you. I certainly 'get' your stance. I think you are incorrect about the 'completely ' subjective nature of, for example, dreams.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

No, the subjective processes have evolved to work for you, to create a dependable map of the world around you. This doesn't mean it is objective.

It must be in part. If anything is. It works.

Because your brain remembers the basic layout of the room, it created a dependable map of it in your head.

Which is exactly what science is doing. Creating dependable maps. And how do we test those maps, via subjective experience.

Sure, but it's all worked out in your head. The brain is pretty good at predicting stuff.

Right. Well said.

Then we might have a misunderstanding of what the word objective means..

Can you give me some examples of things that are objective? And I don't mean like 'chairs'. I mean is there any activity that humans engage in that is at least in part objective. (I do not mean that the activity exists in the objective world. I know you consider all activities as existing as a part of the objective world.)

I don't know what that means in relation to the matter at hand.

Do you think scientific methodology is the only way to arrive at objective truths? If you do, how do you know this? If it is via testing, I am willing to stand up and show that some of my completely subjective mental processes can be tested and pass. In fact you already acknowledged this. If these processes - me workign my way through the dark room - have no objective components, you must think it is pure chance. Or perhaps you haven't thought it through.

There are some researchers that think dreams help to consolidate learning. In other words they are a way of integrating experiences so that they are 'useful' for the individual. Useful. In other words help that individual effectively interact WITH THE OBJECTIVE WORLD. Hell, that could be a definition of science: a mental activity that integrates experiences into useful information for future interactions of the objective world.

 

[Myles]

You choose not to respond to any of my posts but now you jump in with sarcastic remarks.

Are you as dim as HK appears to be ? I have already told you that there are no degrees of objectivity. Something cannot be "partly objective". Think about it !

I won't bother to addres your comments on maps; you have clearly shown that you do not understand what you are talking about, so further explanation would serve no useful purpose.Perhaps you could explain what you mean by " an activity that is in part objective.No doubt you know of many such activities as you are so wedded to the idea.

Next, you can explain in what sense working your way through a dark room entails objective components.as opposed to subjective interpretations of them. How often do you need to be told that whilst a chair is an object you can only know it subjectively. You are simpy saying nothing here. Never mind dark rooms, Try walking into a lampost in broad daylight and you will experience it subjectively through your senses. The lampost is clearly an object.

You seem unable to grasp the obvious truth that there are objects in the world but they can only be experienced subjectively. Think about it before patronizing us from a position of ignorance.

Dreams may help to consolidate learning; what a discovery you have made !
Unfortunately, it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Dreams may help us interact with the objective world interpreted subjectively. which is the point you keep missing.

Take your own advice and think it through, though I won't bet that the outcome will make any more sense than what you have written above.

 

[Vkothii]

there are objects in the world but they can only be experienced subjectively.

So how do you know that dreaming is "completely subjective".
How can anything be completely subjective? Aren't dreams objects - neural activity?

I don't deny an objective reality; as a subject, who is also an object in that reality, what else can I do but subjectively experience it?

By which I mean subjectively experience the objective, of course.
There is no such thing as a subject which is not objective. Nor is there any object which is not subjective.

 

[Myles]

Is it reallythat difficult for you to understand ?

Dreams are the result of neuronal activity, not neuronal activity as such. What is " seen " in a dream is based on our experience of the world which our senses have interpreted; they are, therefore, subjective. Neuronal activity IS objective but you are confusing the process with the end result, i.e., the dream.


I don't know what your second point means. You have been told aall along that we experience everything subjectively.Now it seems that you are saying the same thing, which you can't be because you disagree with us, Confusing!

Your last paragraphs show how confused you are. Every subject is an object but we can only experience it subjectively. In what sense is a chair subjective in and of itself ? Does it experience the world sunbjectively ?

I really have nothing more to say to you . I you have not understood by now, you never will.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Every mental process is at some remove from objects - according to most scientists' explanations. The mental processes we are aware of - remembering, thinking, dreaming, imagining - are all separated from objects by many steps, interpretations, editings, physical distance and time. And yet despite this these processes are capable of drawing correct conclusions about objects. To some extent they must be in contact with the objective world, or perhaps better put, despite the distortions and number of generations of copies involved, accurate information about the objective world is noted. How do we know this? Because they work, I am sure you would agree about at least some of them, better than chance, especially in the minds' of certain individuals. They are not completely subjective DESPITE the intervening layers. If you want to say all mental processes as the individual experiences them are completely subjective, I would disagree, but at least it would be consistant. But to priviledge, for example, perception and say that this is, in some way, in contact with the objective world, but not the others, is silly. How many layers are you allowed? Why can memory be so effective in relaiton to the outside world if it is completely subjective?

If you want to say that perception is also completely subjective and is not in contact with the outside world, I don't know how you can trust scientists' test results. To engage in scientific endeavors requires trust in perception, the validity of experienced phenomena to some degree - the reading of instruments, for example, correct interpretation of data - and memory - the scientists' memory of the experiment, the steps taken in that experiments and so on. And your own perception, interpretation and memory as you learn from the scientists.

The subjective has to be in part objective - not in every instance, but certainly, in general, or we are damned to ignorance. We are them basically with Descartes demon.
That is what I was trying to get at with you Enmos earlier. If the medium through which you get knowledge is completely unreal or completely illusory, you cannot draw conclusions from it about what is real. If it is distorted, but is in part accurate, then you have something to work with.

I see little possibility of you changing your position or interest in getting some objective perspective on it.

So I'll drop off.

 

[Vkothii]

Dreams are the result of neuronal activity, not neuronal activity as such.

There you go again. What's this "result"?
Where is this "result", if it isn't "in" the neural activity of a brain? Dreams aren't a "result", like some movie from a production facility, they are the activity. Neural activity doesn't represent something, it is something. Memory, long and short term, is also cellular structure, it's plastic.

Every subject is an object but we can only experience it subjectively.

So an object may or may not be a subject, but it's subjectively seen otherwise?
Objects are subjective, because they are subjectively experienced - even if that phrase looks like it says objects are subjects, it doesn't. Some objects can be subjects, all objects are (experienced in the) subjective.

In what sense is a chair subjective in and of itself ? Does it experience the world sunbjectively ?

It's subjective if you're a subject, seeing the chair as an object.

Like I say, objective (of objects) is what a subject sees, when they see it (their slice of reality). Subjective (of subjects), is what gets seen, as objects. They are two ways of saying the same thing. From different perspectives.

 

[Enmos]

So I'll drop off.

No point in replying to your posts then..
Thanks for the discussion anyway.

 

[Myles]

Every mental process is at some remove from objects - according to most scientists' explanations. The mental processes we are aware of - remembering, thinking, dreaming, imagining - are all separated from objects by many steps, interpretations, editings, physical distance and time. And yet despite this these processes are capable of drawing correct conclusions about objects. To some extent they must be in contact with the objective world, or perhaps better put, despite the distortions and number of generations of copies involved, accurate information about the objective world is noted. How do we know this? Because they work, I am sure you would agree about at least some of them, better than chance, especially in the minds' of certain individuals. They are not completely subjective DESPITE the intervening layers. If you want to say all mental processes as the individual experiences them are completely subjective, I would disagree, but at least it would be consistant. But to priviledge, for example, perception and say that this is, in some way, in contact with the objective world, but not the others, is silly. How many layers are you allowed? Why can memory be so effective in relaiton to the outside world if it is completely subjective?

If you want to say that perception is also completely subjective and is not in contact with the outside world, I don't know how you can trust scientists' test results. To engage in scientific endeavors requires trust in perception, the validity of experienced phenomena to some degree - the reading of instruments, for example, correct interpretation of data - and memory - the scientists' memory of the experiment, the steps taken in that experiments and so on. And your own perception, interpretation and memory as you learn from the scientists.

The subjective has to be in part objective - not in every instance, but certainly, in general, or we are damned to ignorance. We are them basically with Descartes demon.
That is what I was trying to get at with you Enmos earlier. If the medium through which you get knowledge is completely unreal or completely illusory, you cannot draw conclusions from it about what is real. If it is distorted, but is in part accurate, then you have something to work with.

I see little possibility of you changing your position or interest in getting some objective perspective on it.

So I'll drop off.

Happy ( subjective ) landing

 

[Myles]

Every mental process is at some remove from objects - according to most scientists' explanations. The mental processes we are aware of - remembering, thinking, dreaming, imagining - are all separated from objects by many steps, interpretations, editings, physical distance and time. And yet despite this these processes are capable of drawing correct conclusions about objects. To some extent they must be in contact with the objective world, or perhaps better put, despite the distortions and number of generations of copies involved, accurate information about the objective world is noted. How do we know this? Because they work, I am sure you would agree about at least some of them, better than chance, especially in the minds' of certain individuals. They are not completely subjective DESPITE the intervening layers. If you want to say all mental processes as the individual experiences them are completely subjective, I would disagree, but at least it would be consistant. But to priviledge, for example, perception and say that this is, in some way, in contact with the objective world, but not the others, is silly. How many layers are you allowed? Why can memory be so effective in relaiton to the outside world if it is completely subjective?

If you want to say that perception is also completely subjective and is not in contact with the outside world, I don't know how you can trust scientists' test results. To engage in scientific endeavors requires trust in perception, the validity of experienced phenomena to some degree - the reading of instruments, for example, correct interpretation of data - and memory - the scientists' memory of the experiment, the steps taken in that experiments and so on. And your own perception, interpretation and memory as you learn from the scientists.

The subjective has to be in part objective - not in every instance, but certainly, in general, or we are damned to ignorance. We are them basically with Descartes demon.
That is what I was trying to get at with you Enmos earlier. If the medium through which you get knowledge is completely unreal or completely illusory, you cannot draw conclusions from it about what is real. If it is distorted, but is in part accurate, then you have something to work with.

I see little possibility of you changing your position or interest in getting some objective perspective on it.

So I'll drop off.

"Every mental process is at some remove from objects" is what we have been telling you all along. Mental processes are subjective.

The subjective is an interpretation of the objective. Where's the problem ?

Memory is effective because that is how it works. It is a process which brings things previously perceived subjectively into consciousness. Do you think there is some mechanism in the brain which suddenly turns a subjective interpretation of the world into an objective one ? Of course not.

Forget Descartes and his demon. We can only become aware of the world subjectively. Why should this impede our quest for knowledge ? What we discover fits into our subjective franework. It works in practice within the limitations of our senses.

So,if you bump into a chair, you know it a chair because you have had previous experience of chairs. To argue that an encounter is " to some extent" objective is nonsense. You have no knowledge of " chairness"; you have to rely on your senses to provide you with a subjective interpretation.In other words, there is some object which we call a chair but we cannot know it for what it is in and of itself.

The world looks diferent to a bee from how it looks to us. Is the bee wrong ? Are we wrong? Or can we not say that both views are a subjective interpretation of something "out there" which is unknowable for what it is ?

A dog sees a red object as a shade of grey; is this wrong ,or is it something that fits into the dog's subjective view of the world ? A dog's sense of smell is much more sensitive than ours. Does this means he understands the world better than we do ? It means no more than his sensory apparatus is different from ours, and that he has a different frame of reference.


If you decide to jump out, happy landing !

 

[Vkothii]

"Every mental process is at some remove from objects" is what we have been telling you all along. Mental processes are subjective.

Except it doesn't actually say much at all. What does "at some remove" mean? Is it spatial? Temporal?

Subjective means "the experience".
Objective means "what exists to be experienced".
There isn't any "remove" - they're the same thing.

The subjective is an interpretation of the objective. Where's the problem ?

What does "interpretation of" mean? Where is this "interpretation of" located?

There is no problem, except that some seem to have the odd notion that they can define a "completely subjective" experience.

But experience requires objects, to be experienced, or it just doesn't happen.
Is there a problem now?

 

[Myles]

Except it doesn't actually say much at all. What does "at some remove" mean? Is it spatial? Temporal?

Subjective means "the experience".
Objective means "what exists to be experienced".
There isn't any "remove" - they're the same thing.
What does "interpretation of" mean? Where is this "interpretation of" located?

There is no problem, except that some seem to have the odd notion that they can define a "completely subjective" experience.

But experience requires objects, to be experienced, or it just doesn't happen.
Is there a problem now?

Look before you leap. I was quoting Soahatifit'sdark, I suggest you direce your objection to him/her

 

[Vkothii]

I don't give a solipsist shit who you were quoting.

You can't answer the question can you, you pointless detraction-maker you.
Do you still have your strange, decidedly illogical belief that dreams are "completely subjective"; which phrase is totally meaningless? You seem to be attached to meaningless, pointless statements, about nothing in particular.

Why not say dreams are "completely neurological", or "completely experiential"?
It's about as meaningful.